Pro-Film Look

G

Guardianvm

I posted a this thread already. But I wanted to post it here as well:

I am working on a music video for school right now.
I do not have a great understanding of the technical aspects of making movies. I have only had some basic training and about two years of practice. I am trying to emulate the look and feel of proffesional film. Even though I am using digital video.

I am using the Cannon GL-2 which is a fairly nice camera. I have already shot the musician for the music video and am working on editing that footage. When I looked at the footage I was not pleased because it did not look proffesional at all. It was not how the camera was positioned or any of that it may not even be the image itself. I do not really know what the problem is, and therefore am unsure as how to fix it.

Let me try and describe the way it looks. I do not know the technical wording so please bare with me. This is kind of ironic the footage looks real I think that is why it looks bad if you know what I mean. Have you every flipped to a soap-opera during a comercial break of your favorite show? Well, there is a distinct soap look. It looks real, therefore it looks bad. Does this make sense. My footage looks like it is footage, it does not look like film or proffesional video. I have darkened the image to make it look like pro-film. This helped but the movements are still not right. Its almost like it is too smooth. One thought that I had was if this could be due to a high (or would it be low) sudder speed. Maybe too many frames?

Please help me. I would like to figure out away to make it look like film during the editing process. (since I already shot the footage.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
A lot of people, professionals included, want to "fix things in post." It's always better to shoot it right when you're still in production than to try to fix it later. You will probably spend less time and effort reshooting than trying to fix what you have.

Video is video and film is film. They are two different astectics. Video has come a long long way and it's possible to shoot video footage really well and have it look better than film footage that was shot poorly. However, they each have their own look and feel. I don't think video will ever feel like film, but you can still get great images with video.

Lighting is very important. Take your time setting lights the way you want them and make sure there's enough light. I often use more soft lighting for video than I might for film. Make sure you color balance all the time. Don't let the camera do it automatically.

Shoot with a long lens and open your iris all the way. That will give you a shallower depth of field (things in background and foreground go blurry while your subject is in focus.)

I don't know if your camera does PAL or not, but PAL looks more like film than NTSC.

Hope that helps a little. Shoot some tests, play with it a little before your next shoot.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There is a very expensive software that will add the flutter and even some dust particles to video to make it look more like film. There are also companies that have already purchased this software who will do your video for a cost. I'm not sure but I think Avid and Vegas have plug-ins designed to mirror film. It an answer, but it's expensive.

But you are using video and it is cheaper so I have to agree wtih ktdamien, do it righ the first time, shoot some tests. ;)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The "reality" issue you describe is quite common with video. Video is inherently interlaced which gives it that super real look (well the effective frame rate due to interlacing actually). To get a more aesthetically pleasing look you can try deinterlacing your footage (assuming you shot in interlaced rather than frame movie mode). There are numerous ways to go about this - some better than others. You can deinterlace to either 24fps or 30fps. Usually it's an aesthetic choice.

I'd also suggest playing around with the gamma settings and color rendition in post. I've done a decent amount of color grading in the past so I can help you out there if you wish.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks

How / When do I interlace?

Is it during the rendering stage?

I was talking with my teacher about this issue. He said that there are several things I can do. He said something about "progressive scanning" Is this like de-interlacing?

Also, he mentioned the 30 / 24 frames per second thing. Can I post edit to 24 if I shot in 30?

Guardianvm
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You can deinterlace at any stage really. Most people will do this at the ouput stage though as it's easiest. To understand the deinterlacing process you need to understand how interlaced video works.

Interlaced video is what most video cameras shoot. Only a few specialized cameras under 10K have the ability to shoot progressive footage (more on this later). Since most video is interlaced I will refer to interlaced video simply as "video."

Video records half frames which are known as fields. The fields are either composed of all even lines or all odd lines (which then repeats). What you get are effectively 60 half resolution frames. When you "deinterlace" you take two fields, or half frames, and combine them into a single full resolution image. This process isn't without problems though. You will loose a good amount of resolution is the process. Some methods are better than others but all will loose resolution. Still, it's a better choice than staying interlaced in my opinion!

Progressive scan is the best option and should be chosen over deinterlacing when ever possible. The Panasonic DVX and Canon XL2 both offer progressive scan modes - both at 30fps and 24fps. With progressive scan the entire image is captured at one time and then split into two fields. Progressive scan allows you to use the entire resolution the DV format can handle.

The output of deinterlacing and progressive scan is for all practical purposes identical in their motion characteristics. The difference is in resolution.

Most editing software has a "deinterlace" option. This can work well for output to the web but generally isn't very good for any other output. These usually drop one entire field a loss of 50% res.

There is software out there that will deinterlace footage quite well for you. Magic Bullet is highly acclaimed. I know some use Avisynth and Virtualdub for this sort of work (both free) but I doin't know anything about these programs. Maybe someone with experience using them will post more in that regard.

There is another option though. Many editing programs have a filter called "Posterize Time" (or similar) that can mimick 24fps or 30fps fairly well. It's probably the easiest solution.

Regarding 30 and 24 fps:

Many people will refer to video as running at 30fps but this is somewhat misleading. What you are really getting is 60 individual half resolution frames. If you deinterlace this to 30fps you will notice a distinct difference. Even more so if you deinterlace to 24fps.

You can convert interlaced video (often refered to as 60i) to 24 frames per second or 30 frames per second quite well. What you cannot do is transform 30 frames per second into 24 (assuming you shoot in 30p with a progressive camera - since most video cameras don't have this function it's not really relevant).

Hope that made some sense :) Just ask if it didn't! It's a rather complex issue.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I have been trying to get my head around this issue for some time and my biggest question is why? :lol:

What I mean is... I am currently working with a miniDV camara, editing on my computer, burning to DVD and viewing on a television. If the final product is going to be viewed on a TV what benifit do I have to gain by capturing a progressive image. Considering, if I understand this correctly, miniDV is incapable of storing a true progressive iimage. the image will be uninterlaced(progressive image capture) interlaced(miniDV capture of data), deinterlaced(via NLE software), and then reinterlaced(DVD/TV viewing) before all is said and done. Seems kinda pointless unless your goal is to convert to film, in which case miniDV isn't really your best option any way.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You bring up an interesting facet MikeyD :).

DV is indeed interlaced by default. There's no getting around it. What it can do is store a progressive stream in interlaced form though.

For instance, lets forget about interlacing for the moment and focus on frame rate. Progressive footage has an effective low frame rate of either 30fps or 24fps. To keep matters simple lets focus on 30p footage vs standard footage. Standard video captures each field, or half frame, one after the other. The result is that each field is from a slightly different point in time from the following and preceeding field. What you get then is an effective frame rate of 60 half resolution frames. 30p on the other hand captures only 30 samples of time. One large image is then split into two fields. Since these two fields were captured at the same instance in time you retain the look of 30fps rather than 60fps. So in the end it isn't about whether you are actually showing the footage progressively or interlaced, it's about how many fps you are "effectively" seeing (or better put how many distinct changes per second you are seeing). Not sure if that made sense.

Glad the post was of use spatula and boz!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There is a nice trick to making a DV camera look film like in vegas video.

First, if you have a standard 720x480 output on your video camera, you will click on the little sq box icon on the video strip while in editing mode (In vegas) and you then hold down the cntl button after typing 405 where the heigth field is and hit enter at the same time. this changes the 720x480 to 720x405 (16:9) ratio (more or less)

if you dont hold down the cntl button your 720 will adjust to make up for the difference and stay 4:3 but with different pxle count.

now render it with the settings 720x405 in the render mode and it will cut off the black matte.

dont forget to render with the pull down to 24fps. its not a true 24p look but it will come close. also make sure you dont have interlace set (its default to set at interlace). if you dont set it to the progressive mode you will see weird black lines stretching like taffy all over.

i also set some other settings to give it a brilliant amber tone to the color. it seems to make the colors more brilliant and rich.

I will make a tutorial if you like. although i have not perfected the settings yet. it gives it a wonderful film look. if you want to make it look like aged film you can add the shutter flicker and hair or scratches but thats just a novelty effect.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Shaw said:
So in the end it isn't about whether you are actually showing the footage progressively or interlaced, it's about how many fps you are "effectively" seeing (or better put how many distinct changes per second you are seeing). Not sure if that made sense.
Click to expand...

I think I get it. If the source material starts out as as individual frames instead of half frames combined it really doesn't matter how many times the image is uniterlaced and reinterlaced. So what is gained is an image that is free of the artifacts created by interlacing, is there a downside to using 30p or is it always a better option?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Shaw,

This little tutorial is so helpful. I am really bad at the 'details' of video. I can shoot and I know what I want things to look like, but I have always been bad at the terminology, etc.

It has often been for me kind of a "I don't have to know how to build a computer to operate one" kind of a thing for me, but I am trying to absorb everything I can. I've gotten more out of this exchange than I have in a long time!

--spinner
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I've done some stuff in post using FCP HD after using a GL-2. I have the Nattress Film Effect plug-ins, which actually do a good job of "converting" 60i to 24p. Granted, the lighting and everything when in production play a factor on how good the video will look afterward. I've also used Magic Bullet Editors for different effects.

Also, your contrast plays a big factor. So if you can change the (I'm tired please forgive me, I know this is the wrong term) color curves to create more of an S-shape. The setting I usually use is +0.14 on all RGB. I think the plug-in that easiest to do this with on FCP HD is Film Curves 1.0, which is free. If I find the link, I'll post it, but if not, I'd be willing to e-mail it to anybody if they want it.

Another free plug-in which works well is Black Restore, which helps with the contrast and with restore your blacks to a true black rather than the pixelated or light black you can sometimes get when you use different effects (was that clear?).

Hope that was helpful and clear enough to understand.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
First I want to say hello, I`m new on Indietalk.

I have just purchased a Canon XL2 camera. Does any of you have experience in working with it? I`m out testing all the time, but I can`t get that filmlook, of course it can`t look 100% like film, but you know what I mean.

I hate reading manuals, I want to know things my leaning them myself, but with this one I need some help.

As said before it can be done in post, but I would rather do it right first time.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Hey spinner, glad it was of use! I tend to ramble incohenrently a lot of the time so it's cool that the discussion was of some use.

SpielberFreak: Can you tell us what things you have tried? What look are you specifically comparing the footage too? What do you want it to look like? Do you want a desaturated film type look? A super saturated look? Crushed blacks or detail? etc. If you post a clip I can try tweaking it via software so I can offer color grading suggestions.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
One of the key elements to getting video to appear more filmic is lighting. Lighting needs to be "softer" and more spread-out, because video captures bright, concentrated light very harshly. I suggest you go pick up a cheap, used copy of The Filmmaker's Handbook by Steven Ascher. It has very detailed technical info on diminishing the video look using lighting.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
We just shot a fockumentary (fake docu) with the XL1 and had to make some scenes look like old 1940-1950's film. We used the Cinelook plug in for AfterEffects, cost about $1000 I think. It uses "slurring", or blending, of previous frames with some great customizable settings. It helps take that hypercrisp edge off the digital. Without a plug-in, you can add some grain, adjust levels, even do very minimal blurring but it's a hunt and peck process to get the correct feel.

I do agree that a nice soft light is crucial and of course you'll never duplicate film, just try to get something that isn't distracting in it's digital feel.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top