Film look.

[somedeadguy]

I've heard numerous explanations for the reason that a handy cam looks so much different than actual film. I heard all of these things:

The standard film frame rate is 25fps as opposed to a handycam's 29.97.

When recording on tape, the image is interlaced to save space, instead of an actual "picture" every frame.

The 4:3 ratio throws off the focus of movement.

These are all the reasons I've heard. However, I bought a cheap Sony TRV - 460, and was able to remedy these things. I changed my frame rate to 25fps, I cheated and used one of the mickey mouse digital effects called flash which theoretically takes a picture for each frame, and I recorded in 16:9, but alas, I still have footage that looks like it was recorded on a freaken handycam. I realize that I get what I pay for, but isn't there something that can be done? My friend and I made a short that has some of the most beautiful shots, and great lighting, but no one will take it seriously due to this problem. I live in Reno, and we looked everywhere for a 16mm or even a super8, but found nothing! We even went down the hill to Sacremento, which had plenty of good cameras to rent, but for no less than $1300 dollars a day! That's simply an impossibility on our budget. Is there any kind of conversion program and or proccess we can do?

[peter_g]

There is a plug-in for Adobe After effects called "cinelook". Go to http://www.digieffects.com/. I should emphasize that this plug-in is just a gimmick (I occasionally use it to do things like make video look like a silent movie from the 20's). If you want to make video look like film (which is impossible to do convincingly), this is the best tool for the job. The end result is something which is kind of redolent of film, but lacks that certain X-factor that is difficult to quantify but is the basis of everyone?s attraction to film.

For the record, film is traditionally shot at 24 FPS, not 25.

[Nigel]

Or you could just shoot film....

Good Luck
PS--PeterG the worldwide standard of 24fps for film is somewhat new if at all. Europe was/is on a 25fps standard.

[miker]

If you want the film look don't forget to add dirt, scratches and gate weave. You can also convincingly emulate an optical soundtrack by throwing half your sound data away. Oh, and if the lab boys mis-time everything (because this is low budget style thing right?) then don't forget to screw with your gamma and white-balance. Also, for an authentic "been through the projector a few thousand times" don't forget to remove a couple of frames here and there complete with an audible pop. You also might want to investigate how your negative will look if you don't store it in a fridge prior to sending it to the lab. Don't forget to only replicate around 200 times or less and send everything by courier instead of T3. Most important of all, be sure to release your film in North America first and at least three months later everywhere else.

In my mind at least, the fact you shot your story and subsequently achieved a film look will be as relevant as the fact that no JCBs were used in the construction of the Great Pyramid.

I'm sorry. I'm just in one of those moods and then ..... !

[Yammeryammeryammer]

Some of the reasons for video not looking like film that you may not have heard are:
-Resolution - the resolution in a 16mm frame can't be matched by a handicam. It is meant to be consumer grade.
-Range - your range of blacks and whites aren't going to be as broad or defined. Film has a somewhat narrow range that can fluxuate depending on your stock, speed. You can play around with your camera a bit but you can't really duplicate this.
-Depth of Field - one of the differences between shot composure on film and video that people often don't even think they are missing is the depth of field. Film has a very narrow depth of field in general compared to video. It is also possible (with different lenses and the like) to play around with this and get very sharp, images that can't be duplicated on video. Film requires much more focus attention than video, where it is trying to keep everything in focus. The Handicams have some lens attachments, that give you come versatility, but you still are stuck with a really deep range.
-Colour - the video colours are also a bit off, more realistic in some capacity than film. Film has a sort of warmer exaggerated colour, and that is what gives you the real film look a lot of the time.

Possible solutions are the Super-8 route. It will sorta meet you halfway. Cameras cam be hard to come by, but Sacremento should have a used camera shop or something that would have one kicking around. If not that, then eBay. Shooting 16 is expensive, no way around it. Up here in Canada it is costing us about $450 for 11 minutes while getting a camera for free. But if it is the right 11 minutes, you should need to shoot more. Video I found is good for learning on a more story and process oriented level, not cinematographic level. At any rate, hope some of that was helpful or informative...

[crookedfeatures]

If you want the film look don't forget to add dirt, scratches and gate weave. You can also convincingly emulate an optical soundtrack by throwing half your sound data away. Oh, and if the lab boys mis-time everything... etc

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">One thing Miker left out of his rant was the pube. It is essential when "looking like film" to simulate the stray pube trapped in the projector. You've all seen it, you all knew what it was, you all knew how it got there, none of you were brave enough to say it!

I believe you can get PubeSim7 a plug-in for After-effects that will do the hard work for you.

I made a short that has some of the most beautiful shots, and great lighting, but no one will take it seriously due to this problem

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If people aren't taking you seriously it's probably got nothing to do with shooting on film or not. It may be because of their limitations it may be because of yours. Who are these people that wont take you seriously and is their opinion that important to you?
DV films do get cinema releases from time to time and 35mm films do go straight to DVD, it rarely has anything to do with what they were shot on.

[Nigel]

I talk with distributers from time to time and it is true that they pass over DV. The biggest reason is quality. They want to be assured that when they make the investment that they will be able to get the most out of what they bought.

When DV is released often times it isn't a matter of money. 28 Days Later could have shot film. They shot DV for a style choice. Also, I am willing to be that they spent more money in post than you could know.

As for Miker--You better be in some sort of mood. Because if the film you shoot looks like that then you are in the wrong biz.

Good Luck

[jb_617]

This topic crops up a lot and I don't understand why. Why do you want your video to look like film? Before video was invented, people shot their movies on film because it was all they had to work with (broadly speaking).

Now we have a choice. You have chosen video as the medium through which to tell your story, so why do you want it to look like film? It's a stylistic choice. If you want the warmer, more organic, halation look of film, then shoot film. If you want the look of video, then shoot on video. If you want the cold, sterilised, something not quite right, why is the colour range so compressed, George Lucas it doesn't matter because i'm not really directing this is all going to be fixed in a computer, everything will be muddy brown and ill defined so I can hide the CGI artifacts, look of HD, then use HD.

No filter in the world, ever, ever, is going to give you a film look because no computer in the world ever, ever, is able to go back in time to the exact moment you took the frame and add all the data that was missed back in.

Film is film

Video is video.

Use one, use both, use neither, it doesn't matter. Just accept the limitations of each one and do your best.


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

Old School.

[peter_g]

I can't believe how many people in my old film school cited 28 days later as an example of how one could shoot on DV and get a 35mm theatrical release. Their reasons for shooting DV in favour of 35mm was not just aesthetics - they needed to shoot some of the films scenes very quickly while the metropolitan police kept London traffic at a stand still.

$1300 seems like an exorbitant rip off for a day?s use of a 16mm camera. I did a google search for ?16mm camera rental daily rates? and found a San Francisco based rental house that has a daily rate for an Aaton XTR prod of $275. Surely you are mistaken about this rate.

If you can't shoot film, shoot good DV. You're shooting with a handy cam and wondering why no one will take you seriously? If you want to make movies and be taken seriously but are sure that cost or circumstances prohibit you from shooting film, then buy a canon XL1 or something.

[Nigel]

I usually rent my Aaton package for 300-375 (complete) per day with a 3-day week or Me with the camera for 900-1200 per day. My guess is that the quote for 275 was sans lens, mattebox, filters, aks...

Still it is Market rate here in the US.

Good Luck