One of the things that people overlook is that film has a greater color saturation latitude than video tape does. You would be better off working with a combination of the color correction tools (being VERY careful about black levels, gamma, and color saturation) and slightly blurring the video.

Of course, a lot depends upon the subject matter and the original lighting. Shooting the video with the filmlook in mind is really the first step.

John

Randy's right that anything shot in progressive mode shouldn't be affected by the field order switch.

On the other hand, i do recall reading that the field order switch affects every event based on the same media file. If you need to include the same clip twice with different field orders then you'll have to make a copy of the file (not the event) into a new file, then create each event from it's own separate file.

Some cameras shift the frame rate to 15 fps for the 'film look' or progressive media, others shift color pixels (such as Canon) to do the same thing while maintaining standard frame rate. So...be sure you know which cam you have is doing what to the image. 15 frames is a crappy deal. This is why I mentioned in my article on 'film like' looks in Vegas, that you are better off deinterlacing in post. Do a shoot with the cam in progressive or frame mode. run some pans, zooms, etc. Then do the same in standard/interlaced mode. Deinterlace in Vegas. Then compare the results.

Petty sure the XL1 is 29.97 when in " Frame Movie Mode ", not 15. Don't know about any other cam though.

http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article1.htm

- Ray

www.undergroundplanet.com

I cannot say for certain as I only know about the PD150 but I'd assume the PD100 is the same. The 'progressive scan' menu option only affects stills taken with the camera.
In my opiniion though the most important place to start to come close to the 'film look' is before the light hits the CCDs. Careful control of lighting, depth of fields and camera motion will have more effect than anything else.
Suggestions:
Look into filters by Formatt, particulalryly Supermist and graduated ND.
Invest in a good matte box.
Add a follow focus unit as well, one where you can mark off focus points (Witness marks).
Judicious use of dollies and cranes.
Shooting 16:9 with an anamophic adaptor.

Just a few of the above will cost as much as the camera.
Still a lot cheaper than any film camera.

Two really cheap suggestions:
Reflectors.
A years subscription to the ACS magazine. One of the best presents anyones bought me.

Don't forget some of the basics about shallow-depth of field (to get that Hollywood blurred backgroud look) on the cheap. Hope I'm not repeating the obvious here.

- Use low-wattage, diffuse lighting. Most so-called "video" lights are holdovers from the days when video cameras demanded tons and tons of light to get a decent image. I use 250-watt bulbs instead of the standard 500W bulbs with my PD-150.

- Use neutral density filters (many cameras have these built in, or add-ons are pretty cheap) to force the iris to be as wide as possible.

- Shoot in as a long a room as possible to maximize the distance between camera, subject and background, so you can zoom in a bit. Longer focal lengths = shallow depth of field.

- Black out windows, or if this isn't possible, use daylight filters or gels on your lights to get consistent color temperatures. Sure you can white balance with mixed lighing, but this is always a compromise.

I think these are the essential production elements toward achieving a "film look." Anything else can be done in post.

Isn't it funny that so many consumer cams offer odd effects that you never use, like sepia and solarize?

I'd like to see a consumer cam that offers a "film look" effect. Just progressive mode and a tiny softening. (Yeah, I know it's not even close to perfect, but it's something you'd use more than in in-camera wipe).

bd

The XL is always 29.97, Canon shifts pixels to get the frame look. Apologies if I implied anything else. Some of the Sony and JVC cams slow to 15 fps to get the frame look.

Depends what you define as 'consumer' I guess.
Panasonic DVX100 seems to be about the first effort at building a consumer camera that wouldn't have a pro fall over laughing.
Now if it only had interchangeable glass.

In our period film (WWII), we are running a Panny DVX100 at 24p at the "cine-gamma" setting, with a very weak Tiffen pro-mist filter to take the hard edge off the video look, and the results have been sensational. Although taking that camera and adding interchangeable lenses (another Panny model already in production) jumps the price up by well over $10,000, its Leica lens is good and preset for an "average" wide-angle look.

Of course, part of the "look" is using a fluid-head tripod (or steadicam harness), and always being mindful of three points of light source.

fUtZ,
Here's a quick break down on progressive scan. I'm getting back to basics to explain it, so if I tell you something you already know just mumble at me under your breath and keep reading :)
Video is captured at 30fps (frames per second). Each frame of video is made up of two interlaced fields. 30fps is sometmes refered to as 60i because of this. The interlacing of frames is what will cause lines to appear in some stills captured from video.
Because video is captured at such a high frame rate, it provides more detail than film, giving video a much more realistic look. To help achive a more 'filmy' look, manufacturers have provided a (kind of) fix by adding a setting called Progressive Scan mode.
Progressive scan (frame mode on the GL1/2 and XL1 series) also captures video at 30fps, but only creates one filed per frame. This is refered to as 30i.
In a nut shell, this cuts the feel of the frame rate in half, providing less information to the eye, and giving the video a more film like cadence. Using this setting alone however will not get you the look you want, but it is a step in the right direction. It was asked if Progressive Scan provides a lower resolution. I'm far from an expert, but I see no reason that it ahould lessen your res. I have shot many hours with the XL1s in fram mode, and the resulting video was no different as far as resolution goes.
Other folks have given their tips for achieving a film like look, so I will do the same..
First of all, dig into your camera menu. On the Xl I always drop the sharpness down as low as it will go, and turn the saturation up by about 50%. This softens the image detail a bit, and gives a bit more depth to the color. If you can afford a Tiffen (or similar) Pro Mist filter, go for it. They are great for softening the image without losing too much detail.
Externally, there are many steps you can take to get a more film like look. The biggest thing to do is to stop using your zoom during a shot. Watch 100 movies and I'll bet you never see a camera zoom once. Film cameras use Dolly's, crane's and steadycams to change their perspective on a subject. If you start doing this, you'll notice a lot of difference in the feel. I'm not saying to go out a buy a bunch of equipment. Simply zoom with your body and not your lens.
If you're shooting something outdoors, or in a large room and you're using a tripod, get as far back from the subject as possible, and use your zoom to frame your shot. This will give you a much shallower depth of field, and soften the background much more.
I have more suggestions, but between mine and the others you have a lot to take in.
I hope this has been helpful.

Best of Luck,
Brian