PDA

View Full Version : Low Budget to High Budget???


fofofo1003
01-06-2005, 07:09 PM
I hope this is the right place for this but anyway, I was wandering if anyone one knew how to change a low budget film, ie something done with a mini dv camera turned into an actual good quality picture, ie a big budget film, ie something like 28 days later was shot with a low budget camera but it was given a big budget look. I think its got something to do with the shutter speed or something, but is there anyway software could do it?

tibes
01-06-2005, 11:20 PM
There are a number of things that differentiate video from film. The first and most major being that video is generally an interlaced double-frame rate image.

NTSC is approx 30fps and PAL is 25fps, but these standards consist of 2 interlaced images (or fields) which are actually running at an effective frame rate of 50 or 60 fps. This is why video is perceived "smoother" than film and exhibits less motion blur than film.

Some video cameras will allow you to shoot a progressive image (i.e. one single full resolution frame instead of 2 half resolution fields), however this is only common on higher end cameras. I actually have an old Sony Hi-8 camera which was top of the range before the introduction of digital video, which will shoot progressive, by changing the shutter speed back to 25 (meaning that each field will be the same since the shutter is recording images at 25fps). This is nice because it's very close to film speed and progressive to boot. People using the NTSC standard (USA/Japan) don't have this luxury since 30fps is quite different to 24/25. Higher end NTSC cameras seem to support 24 fps progressive though, so for a bit more money you can get a good result.

The second factor is image resolution and video, depending on standard is 720x576 or 720x480 pixels in resolution. Film work done digitally is generally 2k or 4k resolution (i.e. approx 2000 or 4000 pixels in diameter) and so video is substantially lower resolution than film. Lens quality and versatility is also much worse in video cameras and most CCDs (which applys to older video cameras too) are not great in terms of image quality and can yeild quite "muddy" results, although this is getting much better nowadays.

In terms of can you make a video image look like a film image? - not really. There is some post-production that you can do to get a particular style, i.e. add colour grading or noise, etc. however it's not really possible to add detail to a video image which doesn't exist.

There's many high end DV cams now though that will shoot 2k progressive footage, and if you want to make independant film these are definately the go. the price range is $4000 up but definately worth the money.

The final thing I'll say is that you can do a lot to make a project shot with video look professional and "movie like" with lighting. Film lighting is what makes film look like film and there's an immense amount of skill and study that goes into it. Generally people shooting things on video don't have these skills which leads people to assume that video is not as good as film, I feel the reality is more than people lighting video don't have the necessary skills to get good results.

Hope that helps :D

Nucleo
01-07-2005, 01:50 AM
There's many high end DV cams now though that will shoot 2k progressive footage, and if you want to make independant film these are definately the go. the price range is $4000 up but definately worth the money.

Very nice reply tibes. I wanna learn more about those DV cams. Although i think no dv can reach the quality of film (at least i havent seen any video image that looks so neat as film).

Something else i was wondering is the reason why pro filmmamakers dont use this cameras and choose to film with very expensive film cameras.

Just tell us more :p

tibes
01-07-2005, 02:59 AM
Something else i was wondering is the reason why pro filmmamakers dont use this cameras and choose to film with very expensive film cameras. I think partly it's a cultural thing, there is so much skill and background tradition in regular photography that it'll take a while before people "trust" digital footage. Although it won't take long I don't think as digital changes are made to more and more films (even in colour grading etc.). The cost of digitising film vs. the convenience of digital make digital very attractive. (remember with digital it also records/syncs production sound and visuals, a side benefit that the traditional process doesn't have).

Digital does look superficially different to normal film which may take a while for everyone (audience included) to accept. (real) Film has a grain/noise pattern which depends on film stock and photography conditions and is something that we're all accustomed too. It's even used as a stylistic effect in some shots/films. Digital is sharp as a tack and background and foreground detail is extremely detailed and grainless. This of course is one area where digital grain/noise can be added (thereby giving the film maker more control/options in post-production), so in the long term you could look on this as an advantage.

The final thing is that there haven't been many manufacturers making digital motion picture cameras designed for this sort of thing. e.g. on Starwars Episode II (the first digitally shot feature) Lucas' team had to work with the camera manufacturer to produce a 24 frame progressive camera which was suitable to use for the show. This obstacle is will disappear quickly though, as it becomes more accepted/demanded.

Nucleo
01-07-2005, 04:17 AM
Thats so true Lucas did made the first step i think other will follow and who can blame them, maybe some day digital will look far more realistic than film.

FUG1T1VE
01-08-2005, 03:30 AM
you could check out digieffects cinelook (http://www.digieffects.com/products.shtml#CINELOOK) if thats what you are going for.

DAZZAN
01-08-2005, 09:39 PM
You want something called Magic Bullet.

It is Magic.

Its Software.

It does what you have asked for.

Do a google on Magic Bullet editors.

It is a plug in for AFX and its quicker in Pemiere pro.

ofer_z
01-08-2005, 10:59 PM
check out this link:
http://www.urbanfox.tv/production/filmlookindex.htm

a lot of information about making video look like film

Joviex
01-21-2005, 03:29 PM
The final thing is that there haven't been many manufacturers making digital motion picture cameras designed for this sort of thing. e.g. on Starwars Episode II (the first digitally shot feature)


BZZZZZZZZZ INCORRECT!

the first digitally shot feature was "The Celebration" by Thomas Vinterberg.

Don't believe all the BS hype you read comming from someone who "wants" to be the first.

Not to mention that "The celebration" conformed to the Dogme 95. There are also "The Idiots", "Mifune", "The King is Alive", shot all digital, long before SWEII.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0154420/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnxteD0yMHxzZz0xfGxtPTIwMHx0dD1vbnxwbj0wfHE9dGhlIGNlbGVicmF0aW9ufGh0bWw9MXxubT1vbg__;fc=1;ft=56;fm=1

Note the shooting dates. I think 1997 is slightly earlier than 2001.


As to the look of film in digital. Get the plugins described above. However it also helps to shoot on a format more indicative to film size and color depth.

For that I recommend staying away from minidv. Stick to DVCAM/DVCPro25 or 50. I also recommend not to use HD. First thing is price. Even using an SDX900 is still way cheaper than any high end HD camera. The prosumer stuff is cool, might be worth a look, b ut I find HD to be TOO sharp and requires more work to make it look like film than DVCAM/25/50.

If you absolutely must go with minidv, I suggest looking at the DVX100a.

lukeharris
01-25-2005, 12:22 PM
Yes, the pro50/25 are nice choice if you can get them. Be sure to go into the settings and turn the 'sharpness' down or off and see if you like the look. I did this while shooting a scene with the SDX900 (dvcpro50) - it looked gorgeous. But as tibes said, the lighting is more important than anything else.

-luke

curious_69_george
01-25-2005, 06:28 PM
The final thing is that there haven't been many manufacturers making digital motion picture cameras designed for this sort of thing. e.g. on Starwars Episode II (the first digitally shot feature) Lucas' team had to work with the camera manufacturer to produce a 24 frame progressive camera which was suitable to use for the show.

This is incorrect. Lucas had nothing to do with Sony's creation of the HDW-F900. The camera that was used to shoot parts of Episode 1. And the camera that was used for Episode 2 (HDC-F950) was also in developement long before Lucas was to use it. They talked to panavision to create lenses for the camera that weren't available at the time for that camera, but Sony already had the camera out when Lucas decided to use said camera.

As for Manufacturers, Thomson has the Viper which was used to shoot Collateral, Dulsa has a camera coming out that shoots 4k on a single CCD larger than a 35mm film slide. Panavision also has a 2k camera out as well. Panasonic has the varicam that shoots progressive HD in any frame rate from 3 fps to 60 fps.

Also just to clarify, there are no DV camera's that shoot 2k progressive. There are HDV cameras that shoot 1080i, using interlaced CCD's. But they don't compare to Progressive DV images. But then again that is my opinion.

At this point it is a manner of taste. Personally I don't agree with adding noise to an image. To me that is a flaw in film. I understand wanting to make stuff look like film because that is the status quo, but people should start to change what the status quo is.

CGTalk Moderation
01-25-2006, 07:00 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.