60i , 30i to 24p, film looks,
Posted 06 December 2005 - 01:32 AM
I've heard about a lot of people converting their standard mini dv footage to 24p, are they doing this for hoping to transfer to film, or is this done for a film look and will it play back on normal tv's well? I know this question has probably come 1000 times, but I just want all the methods cleared up that people are doing. I guess it's summed down to
1.using film like production techniques with video : lighting, camera movement, depth of field etc
2. using film look software
3. using video editing software to de interlace footage and apply video layers that are softened or have less opacity etc
What else are people doing to obtain film looks, am I missing anything? I'd just love everything cleared up and how I would achieve a film look if I use film production techniques, and deinterlace and add layers in post production with adobe element 2.0? I'm using a sony mini dv camcorder, 1 chip. Or is there any really good sites on links for the best way to do this kind of stuff. I know there is google and endless forums, but it's like a huge ocean and i don't know what method gives better results. Thank you
Posted 06 December 2005 - 02:13 AM
What else are people doing to obtain film looks, am I missing anything?
Some people will actually take these big nasty reels of stuff called "film"...
Here's a tip: don't try to make it look like film. Try to get a good image, sure, but don't try to make it look like film because it won't, especiallly with a 1 chip camera.
Do you light your movies? If not, start there.
Posted 06 December 2005 - 02:54 AM
Just talking about NTSC for a moment, a 480/24P recording on a DVD can be converted to 480/60i by the DVD player for viewing on an NTSC monitor.
But anyway, people are either capturing at 24P for a 24 frames per second look (mimicking the way a 24 fps film camera samples motion) or they are shooting in 60i, processing in post using "film look" software to create a 24P look but then converting that (as part of the same software) to end up with a 60i recording. Or keeping it 24P for DVD release, since the player can convert to 60i.
But the point is that since a film camera captures in whole frames usually 24 times a second, a video camera doing the same will recreate the motion artifacts of film more successfully than a video camera capturing only in field mode 60 times per second.
"Film look" software also does other things than just simulate a 24P look from 60i material, like add fake grain (usually just more noise though.)
Progressive-scan video (24, 25, or 30P) is an important tool in capturing normal-speed motion in a way that is more similar to how a film camera typically captures it compared to interlaced-scan (50i, 60i).
But obviously motion rendition is just one aspect of the "film look".
It may be more useful to think less about gaining a "film look" and more about reducing what aspects of the "video look" you find the most objectionable.
Posted 06 December 2005 - 12:36 PM
Posted 06 December 2005 - 03:12 PM
Posted 07 December 2005 - 06:55 AM
As regards to David Sweetman's post, i didn't want to start a video vs. film war,
Nor did I! I'm sorry if my post came accross that way; I think my tone might have been adversely affected by my lack of sleep when I posted. I'm glad someone with more knowledge and ability than me was able to clear things up for you.