Generic Film vs. Video Thread

[jb_617]

Matt. In the UK, except for doc's and hidden camera shows, most channels will not accept "colour-corrected" or "film treatment" footage as it really does look shit. You have to arrange it with them first.


----------------------

Magic bullet? Tell that to John Kennedy.

[MatJimMood]

Originally posted by jb.:
[QB]Matt. In the UK, except for doc's and hidden camera shows, most channels will not accept "colour-corrected" or "film treatment" footage as it really does look shit. You have to arrange it with them first.
[QB]

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Really? Most of the DV footage that i've seen on TV has been colour corrected. I've even had 3 video pieces that were all heavily colour corrected shown on the BBC (although that was slightly different circumstances).

I've always thought of adjusting the colour settings and brightness / contrast as being very important in the final edit.

I understand the film treatment thing though. I only use magic bullet sparingly and tend to avoid its film look settings.

[Nigel]

JB pretty muched summed up what I was going for...

MiniDV in order to get it to level that will allow you to show it next to film in a theater you have to sink some big money into it. Same with even HD. A 20 minute HD short will cost you 4,000+ USD in online and tape to tape costs to get a deliverable good. That is all after it is "In the Can".

So where is the savings??

Good Luck

[MatJimMood]

Originally posted by Nigel:
JB pretty muched summed up what I was going for...

MiniDV in order to get it to level that will allow you to show it next to film in a theater you have to sink some big money into it.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What does that money get spent on though? What processes do you have to put the video through to get it up to cinema standard?
Why can't you just edit it all on a avid or home computer and then have it digitally projected as it is?

I'm not trying to undermine what youre saying by the way, i'm just unaware of the intricate details of what miniDV has to go through before its suitable for the cinema.

[Nigel]

I am a DP not an editor so my ignorance may come through when giving names of software...

In order to get MiniDV up to standard you need to use Lustre to color correct at a HD or 2k level. Then use Smoke or Flame to run the online. Plus, you have to have the flow through on a computer that can handle expanding and then the expanded image. To be honest you would need to get the nitty gritty from an editor or post house.

However, the tests that I did with MiniDV up rezed then shown side by side with S16 looked like shit. Even after the interpolation they were pixelated and the color crushed really badly. There just wasn't enough information there to begin with. It ultimatly cost me the job because I refused to have my images look like that.

Good Luck

[Nigel]

Actor--

What about the fact that you will have to spenbd huge bucks to color correct you tapes to match during your online?? Or the fact that you will have to run some major interpolation to get the colors to come up to snuff and even then they will look like shit?? Video be it MiniDV or HD has a big black hole on the back end to get it to look half way decent. The biggest issue with MiniDV is color. It just can't hold enough color information and it starts to fall apart very very quickly unless you throw a bunch of money at it.

Good Luck

[jb_617]

Matt:

You got your stuff on the BBC, I'm impressed, what was it? A short or a programme or animation? Keen to know.

Anyhoot, I only really know the stuff about programmes that are being sold to a channel, not things that are requested as part of a competition or a series of shorts or something. They will accept lower quality for those. But a series that you sell to a commercial or public channel has one hell of a lot of requlations (The Channel 4 technical requirements runs to, I think, some 300 pages.)

It is not possible (and I <u>know</u> I'm gonna get flamed for this, but it's true) at the moment to produce things of sufficient quality on a home computer with Low or Mid-range software. For video, you really do need those high end online editors.

I'm not sure exactly about colour correction filters being Tv "legal", they probably are. It depends if it's a style choice (i.e you are making something stand out intentionally in your programme), you can get away with them, but they are discouraged because they make the programme look uneven. I think...

"Film-Look" things are a definate no-no, which is why I constantly flame people who post threads asking how to make their video look like film. You can't so give up now.

Of course, if you originate on S16 and edit on a flatbed. You have none of these problems and it works out around the same cost.


----------------------

Double negatives are an absoloute no-no.

[Tasty Fish Lips]

Also, what are your priorities?
Is a big screen flat panel TV or computer monitor more important than your filmmaking tools?
Is a nice car more important than your filmmaking tools?
Is a DVD collection more important than your filmmaking tools?
Is a two-week vacation that will come and go more important then your filmmaking tools?
Are video games more important than your filmmaking tools?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't think you can really convince a die hard fan of either to switch and truly convince them that the other medium is better. But for those who do think film is better, but don't think they can afford it, I was just suggesting that perhaps they need to reevaluate their priorities and the examples I gave are just generic random examples. Of couse I don't know what anyone's personal situation is. But, I've met people who say they can't afford film, but then they go out and party every weekend spending money on beer. They spend money on an audio system for their car. They spend money on flat panel TV's. They spend money on all of these "luxuries." So, be honest with yourself - are you truly serious about film - if so - sit back and look at your priorities. Again, the basic examples I gave are just that - "basic examples".

Alex knew what I was getting at:

As for being able to afford the film camera, the second idea presented was that if one adds up money spent on certain "luxuries" and simply gave up those luxuries for a while the film camera could be afforded, and that those "serious" about advancing their knowledge base would do so.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The specifics of what each of our own money-robing luxuries are is not the point. The point is "do you have such luxuries and do you really need them?" And look around you, maybe you own stuff that you dont really need but can sell. THIS IS WHAT ASPIRING INDEPENDENT GUERILLA FILMMAKERS DO. And then many of them, as we all know, even max out their credit cards.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 25, 2005 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Tasty Fish Lips ]</font>

[Alex]

I color correct virtually everything that I edit in my studio. That's the big advantage of BetaCam Sp.
When it's "corrected" on the BetaCam, it IS Broadcast quality.

[jb_617]

BetaSP is no longer considered broadcast quality in the UK. I only know about Channel 4, but they require DigiBeta as a minimum, unless there's a good reason, such as archive footage or a hidden camera show. XL-1's, BetaSP and the rest, just don't cut it anymore.

The picture quality for UK TV (especially on digital) is very very high at the moment and I think they want to keep that standard high. I can see a time where HD (if it proves itself) will be the de facto standard.

I guess in the US it doesn't matter too much as your TV picture is crap. [img]wink.gif[/img]

Just kidding, but whenever I'm in the US, I thank god for PAL.


----------------------

I have a really really bad cold.