[kwcm]

Hi

I recently got myself a Canon HF10 and have been quite impressed with being able to take HD images.

Having now read so much about video footage and images, it seems that many people often talk about trying to achieve a "film look" and will spend money on equipment or software to try to achieve that look.

From my perspective - yes, I can tell when I'm watching a film vs a good HD footage. HD footage (esp for documentaries) are amazing - the level of brightness and detail especially. And even on movies in Blu-ray.

But is someone able to explain what "film look" is? Is it sharpness of image? contrast? light level? image blur? etc? What are the characteristics of "film look" vs raw footage? For example, if someone were to ask me to try to shoot something so it had a "film look" I wouldn't even know what I'm trying to achieve.

KC

[redsox_mark]

There are multiple factors, and it can mean different things to different people. But it's all about how shooting 35mm film tends to look different than video.

Some of the major factors are:

- Frame rate: Film is 24 fps. NTSC standard video is 29.97, PAL is 25 fps. 25 is close to 24, so this is why you will hear more from people in NTSC land about 24p.

- Depth of field: Video cameras tend to have a large DOF compared with film camera (and their lenses). You can get round this somewhat in video by moving further away and using the zoom.

- Lighting/colour: Films use lighting a lot - not just to make it bright; often a film will actually be dark to match the scene. Your typical home video in good light is all bright and clear; in poor light it is grainy. Use of creative lighting and post processing can make a video look more film like. The colour accuracy of film cameras is also very good, play with your camcorder white balance to make sure the colours are realistic.

That's a start at least...

[senu]

Just a few comments to add, or perhaps to simply reinforce Marks post above
I think that there is a "fluidity of motion" and subdued vibrancy that gives film look that "non digital" appearance
Edges dont look razor sharp and subtle differences in colour variations easier to see
I personally think that although the "Film look " may represent the holy grail of video, Digital video can be quite decent to watch and some films have been shot digitally albeit with "state of the art" kit

Even so with digital
The frame rate can be done with video,
The "depth of field" is really a function of Lens, sensors ( film does tend to be bigger) ect ( see reply to your other post)
Colours: Film simply has a wider dynamic range of colours , that is a physical property
and as stated, a Dark scene is likelier to look dark, not "speckly"

In a way this analogy is not unlike Film vs Digital images with Still cameras except that the way motion is portrayed is specific to motion video also come into play

In large measure costlier ( More Pro) video hardware can emulate film ( and there are PP techniques , some of which work better than others to "fake" it
Some of the more High end Video cameras (I use the phrase loosely for want of a better description for them :some cost tens of thousands of pounds) aspire to Video cinematography and use various methods to look less like video and more like "film"

There was a somewhat contentious thread about it
Real Cinema 24p or 25p?

Suffice to say trying to achieve it with a consumer camcorder is what the camcorder marketeering machine would like but in reality a bit of a myth

[chrishull3]

Originally Posted by kwcm

Hi

I recently got myself a Canon HF10 and have been quite impressed with being able to take HD images.

Having now read so much about video footage and images, it seems that many people often talk about trying to achieve a "film look" and will spend money on equipment or software to try to achieve that look.

From my perspective - yes, I can tell when I'm watching a film vs a good HD footage. HD footage (esp for documentaries) are amazing - the level of brightness and detail especially. And even on movies in Blu-ray.

But is someone able to explain what "film look" is? Is it sharpness of image? contrast? light level? image blur? etc? What are the characteristics of "film look" vs raw footage? For example, if someone were to ask me to try to shoot something so it had a "film look" I wouldn't even know what I'm trying to achieve.

KC

Purchase a super 8 you will get the the film look for surebut seriously as senu said this has been through the tredmill plenty of times,for me the difference is the general colour and texture of film which is why i like one of my cams,framerate matters little to me personaly.Some great looking films have been made with pro video and some on not that expensive prosumer type machines

[A n d r e w]

Q: What is "Film Look"?
A: Overrated.

[senu]

Originally Posted by Courtaj

Q: What is "Film Look"?
A: Overrated.

Nonetheless loved by the marketing men..., ( and folk who make films ..not just videos..!!)

[chrishull3]

Originally Posted by Courtaj

Q: What is "Film Look"?
A: Overrated.

Here Here

[GaryB]

There is one big problem with the "Film Look" - It doesn't actually look anything at all like film. A fact that seems lost on those who choose to use it.