PDA

View Full Version : Video looks like a movie


DIGITAL RODS
03-05-2004, 12:49 PM
Hi guys,

Ive just create a short list, explaing how to give a video (D1, in my especific case) a film look. Any idea will be great:

1. Remove the fields
2. Add a little bit of motion blur
3. Increase Contrast
4. Increase master color
5. Add grain

Now I woul like to know how to give a Widescreen look, without cut any part of the footage.

Thanx
Rod

Tuqui-tuqui
03-05-2004, 06:55 PM
6) Get yourself Magic Bullet :p

gmask
03-05-2004, 07:09 PM
>>>1. Remove the fields

I wouldn't just drop the fields this will make everything look crappy. However converting the frame rate to 24fps using the fields and then back to 29.97 would be a good idea as film is shot at 24fps and then covnerted to 29.97 thus introducing fields.

2. Add a little bit of motion blur

Yes and this should be apart of the above process

3. Increase Contrast

yes and as suggested Magic Bullet will help with this/ also you'll want to "crush the black" in film terms this is called skipping the bleach in the development process and it causes the lowend darks to clip at black. In After Effects you can often just copy a layer and apply as a multiply or overlay and get this look with a few adjustments.

4. Increase master color

No you don't want to increase the overall saturation this does not transalte well on video. You may in fact wish to decrease saturation and tint it either a little green, a little blue or a little yellow/sepia


5. Add grain

Yes again I think Magic Bullet or grain surgery will help with this

>>>Now I woul like to know how to give a Widescreen look, without cut any part of the footage.

Since you are working with existing video that was not shot anamorphic you can only crop the image.

What compositing program are you using to do all this in?

Daniel-B
03-08-2004, 02:33 AM
Here is an article I wrote on film looking footage. It works pretty well.

http://www.dvinfo.net/articles/filmlook/broadway1.php

Troub
03-08-2004, 05:43 AM
Dear PixelMagic...

this is an extremely helpfull article you mentioned.
:beer:

thanks for sharing your knowledge.
are there any more tuts you made.
right now i'm working on a project with premiere and ae at school and this will be very helpfull.
keep up the good work
troub

Breinmeester
03-08-2004, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by gmask
>>>1. Remove the fields

I wouldn't just drop the fields this will make everything look crappy. However converting the frame rate to 24fps using the fields and then back to 29.97 would be a good idea as film is shot at 24fps and then covnerted to 29.97 thus introducing fields.


Fields aren't introduced by the convertion to a different framerate, but simply because of the different media. Fields and 'frames' (non-interlaced footage) is the biggest difference between film and video. Film captures an image at once and video splits a frame in to two interlaced images: one with the odd number lines and one with the even number lines. This makes video much more fluent and gives it that 'real' look. To convert your fields video footage to frames you'll have to deinterlace it. This can be done using post production software. The before mentioned Magic Bullet does a really good job at this because it not only merges the fields but also recalculates the footage to make a convincing frame. Two fields of the same frame can look different from eachother because of changes within one 50th (or 60th for NTSC) of a second (fast moving objects), Magic Bullet can make them fit. There are some videocameras that can record frames instead of fields. One of them is the Canon XL1.

gmask
03-08-2004, 06:21 PM
>>>Fields aren't introduced by the convertion to a different framerate, but simply because of the different media.

Well Pretty mcuh anytime film is telecined to video in the states it goes from 24fps to 29.97 and fields are introduced to accoutn for the missing frames and it's called 3:2 pulldown. You could also transfer the film so that one frame of film equally one frame of video.. so it's really a combination of the format and the framerate that has to do with why a film transferred to video gets interlacing but since video uses fields it makes sense to interlace the difference in frames to prevent the motion from being choppy.

So IMO even if you convert video to be "progressive.. that's what the p in 24p stands for" and not have interlacing it is still at the incorrect framerate of 29.97 which is visually different than film or dv shot at 24 or 24p fps.

Lorecanth
03-14-2004, 06:43 AM
the canon xl1 or xl1s doesn't really shoot a "progressive" frame. Its more of a hack. That just recombines the two fields before they're recorded, essentially the same thing as combustion or AE is doing while deinterlacing.


http://www.panasonic.com/PBDS/subcat/Products/cams_ccorders/f_ag-dvx100.html

actually captures the image at one go and can also shoot in 24p. There is a difference.

And on the subject of color correction, it should be about the way you want the piece to look. Play around for 5 hours, learn what the tools can do.
Magic Bullet is a great toolset, as a starting point but I think its inexcusable to hit a preset and not think about what you're doing (thats what we get paid for) and if its your own work a final color correction is worth the extra time.

colintheys
03-15-2004, 07:00 AM
I recently had the pleasure of using that Panasonic camera and it really produces beautiful images. Judging from my past experiences with Canon, I'd steer clear of the Xl1. However, the DVX100 really was a dream to use, especially the 24p mode. No fields from the start makes effects and compositing far easier. :)

bartrobinson
03-16-2004, 09:23 PM
I second the less contrast.

Also, depending on how filmy you want to get, you can add two additional steps possibly.

Film weave. Add it if you want that unstabilized film jitter.
Dust & Scratches. You might lift these from a test wedge.

farbeyonddriven
03-31-2004, 05:07 PM
i read about this topic and correct me if im wrong, most of the techniques is concentrated on NTSC which is 29.97 fps,

what about pal which is 25 fps? is it treated the same as NTSC when dealing with fields or theres another different calculation?
thanx

RichardB
03-31-2004, 10:28 PM
PAL at 50 fields is a dream to convert.. you just combine the upper and lower field and you get 25 frames a sec, or, what we used to shoot 16mm TV on.

Wizdoc
04-03-2004, 12:34 PM
Tweaking the color curve from linear to a slight slope shaped helps a bit.

farbeyonddriven
04-06-2004, 07:28 PM
thanx RichardB, it helps, but still it doesnt answer my question,

im more interested in having PAL converted into film 24fps, which is from 25fps to 24fps or perhaps 25 or 24 just dont differ that much...just 1 fps ...hmmm...

i dont know...

CGTalk Moderation
01-17-2006, 03:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.