"Filmlook" for DV, why on earth

[S8 Booster]

The EXCELLENT split image & microprism viewfinder of the Canon 1014 XL-S



R

[David M. Leugers]

One of the joys to me of shooting either R-8mm or S-8mm is the increased depth of field. If anyone doubts this or thinks I'm crazy, try picking up a Bolex pocket camera such as the B-8 with a Switar 5.5mm lens. You only have to set the aperature for proper exposure and everything, EVERYTHING, will be in focus and incredibly sharp. You can shoot and shoot without worry. It is great for close-in shots in groups of people and wide shots establishing location etc. Although some S-8mm cameras are very difficult to focus with, many are easy to focus and produce great footage without any waste due to poor focus. I think the plastic cartridge of the S-8mm film, poor focusing capabilities of certain cameras, poor back focus adjustment of the camera lens (shows itself on wide shots) and the "grab a shot" nature of lots of S-8mm footage (who hasn't forgotten to refocus the lens when shooting in a frenzy? don't laugh, lots of times its hard to immediately recognize lack of proper focus when looking through the viewfinder of some S-8mm cameras) all contribute to soft images. My Sankyo CME1100 Hi-Focus S-8mm camera is the most accurate and easiest to focus camera I have ever used. I'm sure others have different favorites.

[jessh]

Hi,
Agrre with jessh : tape measure is the only way for excellent focussing in S8, but also in 16, s16, 35, s35, video & so on...
Matt

one of the things that really anoys me about consumer video cameras is that while many have manual focus it is impossible to measure focus and the viewfinders arent nearly good enough to judge focus, so all it is good for is locking what the autofocus gives you. Anyone know if it would be possible to put the lens from a Beaulieu on a Canon XL1s? :-)

~Jess

[S8 Booster]

Beyond that, considering the incredible depth of field that super 8 has, why do we keep getting so many rolls to transfer that are soft focus on wide angle?!!!

My two cents....

Roger

It might have something to do with the lens designs. I remember reading the maintenance manual for the Canon 1014 XL-S that the lens was designed especially to avoid some problems appearing at full wide in XL mode:

From the manual:

its performance is giant and extremely sharp wide open, an important feature for an XL camera lens.

Just for information:
As for colour balance the ideal standard as decided previously is well matched with other Canon 8mm camera

Mentioning that it is a true linear F1.4 lens over the entire focal range. Tested. Totally free of vignetting too (spec)



R

[Pedro]

viewfinder:
of course, tape measuring is always the VERY BEST, but in most cases it is to slow for me and only works at closer distances (length of the tape).
My basic issue is speed. Focus setting as fast as possible and as exact as possible for not loosing that only one never come back moment to shoot! And nobody should recognize that someone is shooting. So no clapbord for sound and no tape for focus. And I found out, that ground glass is the most exact and the quickest. It works under any light conditions and AT ANY PLACE in the viewfinder area. It does not requiere special geometrical structures like split image does (vertical lines). You only zoom in at open stop, using the focus button, set your focus IN ONLY ONE TURN, and zoom back to shoot.
With split image at that tiny gauge, most cameras show a irritating diference between the split image and the clear areal ring around. At the cameras I had and had tryed (unfortunatly no Canon 1014, but a 310XL), the areal ring always was out of focus, when the structures in the split image are combining. You never know to believe in what. Plus the whole system depends too much from the viewfinder setting. When disadjusted, you only regonize it when getting back your film. Not so with ground glass. You cannot compensate a wrong viewfinder setting with the focus ring of the lens. Out of focus keeps out of focus. And many viewfinder settings disadjust so easy, due to unproper fixing methods! It can be really boring.
So I abandoned all that stuff and using ony ground glass. And I nearly don´t produce any "soft" shots anymore, saving much film stock costs and getting a more reliable system.

Pedro
Pedro

[mike]

This topic started off as film look in dv but went off track but back to the point:

DV has taken over a lot more of the production film used to do. A number of documentaries have been shot in dv. Star Wars episode 2 was an all digital production. Cannes film fest even had the film screened on a dv projector.
Sadly, the writing on the wall is that film is on its way out. Dv projector companies have been buying out companies that make and service 35mm projectors. Probably in 20 years the major theaters will have dv only projectors and revival houses will be showing films in 16mm and 35mm.
the film look?
Video always had the same disease with attempts to shoot it in a film look. Compaired to film, video looks like crap no matter how its shot. Same thing with dv. The users of the dv medium just cant seem to come to grips with their medium as it is.

The only bright note in all of this (if you like film):
If DV projectors really replace film projectors completely then in theory you could shoot in any format (i.e. 8mm film or super8)
have it transfered to dv and screened.

[StopMoWorks]

....... let us suppose that happens.... For the past 100 or so years the masses have been weaned, accustomed and familiar with the "Film Look" ..... so DV camera manufacturers will merely incorporate features that you can dial-in the film look or it will automatically be setup to always give you film look ..... it can be "faked".

Also maybe another distinction ..... the mainstream movie business requirements verses the consumer's requirements. I do not think "joe consumer" gives a rat's ass if his DV cam can give him the film look, so manufacturers may not even bother with that option on the moderate/average consumer DV camcorders.

Another thing, as far as I know, digital projection standards for the pro movie biz is not "standardized" yet. Majority of movie theaters have Film Projection. Some resistance perhaps in paying substantial increased costs for DV projection equipment? Or, maybe Studios or DV projection companies will be generous to offer theaters, DV projection equipment close to the cost of film projection equipment or subsidize it? It is difficult to say if or when change will occur ..... probably very, very gradually ...... the entire film distribution infrastructiure has to be set-up ..... it's not going to happen suddenly. My 2 cents.

LIO

[MovieStuff]

Video always had the same disease with attempts to shoot it in a film look. Compaired to film, video looks like crap no matter how its shot.

Hi, Mike!

Not to seem argumentative but there are a variety of myths regarding film and video production:

"Miniatures always look fake, no matter how they're shot"

"You can always tell a matte painting"

"Looping sucks because you can always tell it's been dubbed."

"Video always looks like crap, even if it's shot using film look."

Here is the reality:

Miniatures only look fake if they're done incorrectly. Miniatures are used all the time and no one, even the critics, know the difference.

Matte paintings only look fake if they're done incorrectly. Matte paintings are used all the time and no one, even the critics, know the difference.

Looping only seems fake if it's done incorrectly. Looping is used all the time and no one, even the critics, know the difference.

Film look only looks fake if it's done incorrectly. Film look is used all the time commercially and no one, even the critics, know the difference.

In short, "film look" or "24p" is used widespread on television and is simply accepted as film by the entire viewing audience. I don't have numbers to back me up but, based on my own production work in Houston alone, I would say that for every production with bad film look, there are 5 that sneak right on by and look just great.

"Film-look" is merely a single technique from a bag of many, like miniatures, lighting, sound, make up, music, etc. It would be silly to claim that a single example of bad lighting means that no lighting should ever be used or that a film with bad miniatures validates the ineffectiveness of that technique for all films.

Likewise, it is really a bit of a stretch to claim that "video always looks like crap", even if film look is used, simply because some examples of bad film look exists. If the exception defines the medium, then the handful of really crappy, underexposed and fuzzy super 8 films means that super 8 is totally inferior and will look like crap no matter how is it shot, right?

See my point?

Roger

[S8 Booster]

"Miniatures always look fake, no matter how they're shot"

See my point?

Roger

Believe that this is difficult to judge in general but possibly the sharpness of video may contribute to make it more difficult?.

Remebering watching Wolfgang Petersens "Das Boot" at cinema about 20 years ago and the model submarine at sea looked very real at the screen, even the sea spray which usually makes it easy to differ from a real ship. (Sea spray appear real slow and powerful on real ships, much faster and tinier on "model takes" most times not properly slowed down and you can also see the water droplets many times, while you can not see that the same way on the "real" takes)

Anyway, I watched the movie on TV some years later and the stuff looked much more faked there so I belive hat this is a difficult issue in general?


Still have this funny feeling that 8mm and possibly 16mm might be the only film formats to survive even if it is a "spinoff" from 35mm. 8mm because it is very cheap and probably good enough for TV work etc., at least when watching the recent samples posted from the Works Printer it got to be adequate for TV screening?

Other factors: It is easy to bring around two 8mm cams (1 for backup) than two 16mm cams, yeah I know it is even easier to bring a DV video cam with a couple of video cassettes than two 8mm cams and a bag of film, separate audio recording gear etc., but if the film look is desireable 8mm might be the way?

R

[mike]

I dont think you can compare matte framing and miniature uses with the dv and video film look. mattes and miniatures have been in film for 100 years.
100 years of dv in film will still look like dv.
no one, even critics, can tell the difference? Any moron can be a critic and most critics are morons. Anyone with any technical knowledge of how movies and video are made can notice what is being used in a film and when.
100 years of the film look? a film look for film?
I would concurr that if super8 film is not shot well, it will look like crap, but its still film!

[MovieStuff]

I dont think you can compare matte framing and miniature uses with the dv and video film look.

Well, considering that "matte framing" is about mounting pictures for use in a gallery, I guess I'd have to agree. On the other hand, I was speaking of "matte paintings" which, when implemented correctly, go by unnoticed. The same is true of film look and 24p.

mattes and miniatures have been in film for 100 years.
100 years of dv in film will still look like dv.

Huh? I really don't understand your argument. It makes zero difference how long a given technique has been around to be believable to an audience. It either works or it doesn't and pointing out the exception where it doesn't has no bearing on the occasions where it does. Again, if that were the case, then all the really crappy super 8 we've transferred would indicate that supe 8 can't ever work for something serious, but you and I both know that isn't true.

no one, even critics, can tell the difference? Any moron can be a critic and most critics are morons.

Again, you've lost me as I fail to see how this relates to the discussion at hand. Critics of film look and 24P digital are quick to point out when the technique is badly applied but can not honesty claim that they are always aware of the technique's presence in the media. Film look and 24P are used massively on television now for movies, weekly shows and music videos and I can guarantee you that you've seen it and never knew the dif; only when it doesn't work.

Anyone with any technical knowledge of how movies and video are made can notice what is being used in a film and when.

Only when it is done badly. That you maintain you can always tell the difference is ironic proof that you can't. No one is that good at consistantly spotting film look or 24P on television. I know I can't and I'll wager I have more direct experience working in both. Again, we're not talking about the difference between the look of film and raw video. We're talking about when film look or 24P has been successfully used to emulate the look of film.

100 years of the film look? a film look for film?

Again, you've lost me, Mike. Does this have anything to do with 100 years of matte framing? ;)

I would concurr that if super8 film is not shot well, it will look like crap, but its still film!

Not the issue at all. The issue is that one can not point out the exceptions where the technique fails as an indication that it will always fail, which is what critics of film look and 24P do on a regular basis. To wit:

Video always had the same disease with attempts to shoot it in a film look. Compaired to film, video looks like crap no matter how its shot.

Obviously not since there are countless shows, movies and music videos that use the film look and 24p technique quite successfully and no one, not even you, are likely to tell the difference EVERY time. Are there some that you can point out? Of course. But, again, the exceptions do not define the limitations of the medium or the technique.

For the record: I prefer film but I just find it humorus that people often ignore the short comings of their own prefered medium while pointing out the exceptions of another. I've seen a lot of crappy film but I know it does not define the medium any more than crappy video defines the electronic medium.

Roger

[mike]

I was using your arguments as points against video and dv. You even diss your own points?

Don't like matte shots? Dont even know what it is in films? Geuss you hate "2001 a space odyssey" then?

I and a lot of people notice when video or bad special effects are used in movies. Go to a theater and watch how a movie is edited and you will wonder how it is shot. A series of cuts that presents itself as a conversation between 2 people could have been shot with each actor in front of the camera at a completely different time. I watched "The Others" in a theater and figured it was being played on a dv player as the film had no scratches or that little white circle (a cue to change the reel) Too clean.

If filmmakers had shortcommings (as you say) they should probably doing something else if they cant make do with FILM. Film has been around for a long time and films can and have be made well. Just becuase new technology comes along doesnt mean everyone should buy into it. Geuss you dont remember coke II, videodisks or 8 track tapes?

There isnt much wrong with the tried and true film.

The only thing I have left to say is to make dv look like dv, not something else. If you want it to look like something else (i.e., film) shot it in film.




[/i]

[S8 Booster]

So, its all about money in the end then?

http://www.filmlook.com/

R

[MovieStuff]

I was using your arguments as points against video and dv. You even diss your own points?

Don't like matte shots? Dont even know what it is in films? Geuss you hate "2001 a space odyssey" then?
[/i]

I have no earthly idea what your point is, Mike.

Look, the fact is that film look and 24P are used all the time without you even being aware of it. So your original statement that video will look like crap no matter how it's applied simply isn't true. Obviously, video is capable of supporting an asthetic film image; just transfer some film to video and you're there. Likewise, there are techniques out there that are used quite successfully to artificially create that illusion which - like any illusion - is only noticable by you, me and others if it is done badly.

Now, if you want to maintain that even good special effects like 2001 are noticable to everyone, then you are being somewhat obtuse in your reasoning. Obviously, going into the theater one KNOWS that 2001 was not shot in space, therefore, everything in it is a rather obvious special effect. However, for every "2001" or "Star Wars" that's obvious due to the subject matter involved, there are dozens and dozens of movies where "invisible" special effects are employed to change the size of a suburban house, or add trees to a park, or remove the signage from a fence line, or add mountains to the distance or blow up a building or crash a car, etc. These are basic, rather mundane effects that only call attention to themselves when they DON'T work. Pointing out something like 2001 that calls attention to itself even when the effects are working perfectly makes no sense.

Now, I do agree (assuming this is what your are implying) that projected film looks better than film transferred to even the best video. However, I do not believe that is the context of this discussion.

Beyond that, I do know what a matte shot is. I've created hundreds of them over the years in my work; enough to know that the technique isn't called "matte framing". ;)

Why don't we do this a different way. Point out some shows, music videos and commercials that obviously use film look or 24p DV. It should be easy, right?

Roger

[S8 Booster]

Found this and still wondering even more why film isn´t the #1 choice?

PETERGRAY:
director of photography, peter gray, dp, cinematography, dop, cinematographers, lighting cameraman, videographers, dv, high definition, 24p, digital films, HDW-F900, CineAlta, 70mm, independent films, lighting directors, filmmakers, filmmaking, HDW-700A


Initial Reaction to Release of 24p mini-DV

I've been checking into the new goodie's being released at NAB this year (April, 2002). There is an interesting new development in the digital camcorder world. After years of rumours and speculation, 24 frames-per-second progressive (24p) in the mini-DV camcorder format is becoming a reality. The first 24p mini-DV format camera is Panasonic's soon to be released model AG-DVX100 DV Cinema(tm) Camcorder. The announced shipping date is September, 2002.

Great. Lets pop in that tape and start rolling. Wow, we are shooting 24 fps just like a film camera. And the CCD is scanning progressively, giving us better looking images. That's good. Now what? Let's play it back and take a look. But there is no 24p display system to plug it into. But all is not lost. We can play it back on a regular TV. Panasonic have built in a little chip that will convert the 24p to 60i (i.e. regular NTSC video). This is great, but we are not seeing 24p any more, but rather normal video with 6 more frames artificially added (the so called 3:2 conversion process). But on the other hand, this is what happens to all filmed movies we see on television. So in a sense, we are still getting a little bit of that elusive "film look"..........

A LOT MORE HERE:
http://jkor.com/peter/24pdv.html