Yes, for DVD. I'd like to do the processing in Vegas, somehow, then render using mainconcept mpeg2 encoder.

there is much more to the FILM LOOK then just trying to match 24fps .. when film is transferred to tape they add the " 3:2 " pull down which then gets the 24fps to video's 29.97 fps ... which IMO looks terrible on motion !! after effects can do it ... beware that it can come out messy if you have alot of motion in the clip .. as it must convert 60i to 24P then 24P to 30i ( using 3:2 )


not that this will HELP you now but panasonic is releasing a DV hand size camera that will shoot 24P and 30P ... when it shoots in 24P it writes to tape with the 3:2 (29.97)pull down so you can view it on a TV .... then later if you go to FILM software can remove the 3:2 .........

Yes, this is great feedback, thanks very much. However, I already purchase the PD150 from Sony - it only does 15fps in progressive scan - anyway to get away with it like that? Tried upping the shutter speed, not bad, but if I can somehow get more frames per second would be better.

Anyways, any way to do this in vegas? after effects won't work in vegas!

asafb

[sonicepm - please reply if you can]

If you want subtle, try using the color balance filter (red midtones preset), then a tiny amount of grain from the add noise filter, and a small amount of glow on top of that, then render the MPEG-2 as progressive. You'll get an interesting look- kind of a stylized video that might be acceptable. If you want "trashed film" then the Film FX plug-in is your best bet.

For what it's worth, I have never seen a really convincing film-look effect with video, unless you are going for the crummy 16mm reversal look, which can be faked reasonably well. Yes, I've tried Cinelook.

SonicEPM: Can you give me specific presets, in other words, precise amounts (like add noise - how much - 0.19, 0.29 etc..)

Let me know. Also, when i save it as a progressive mpeg2 with 29.97fps ntsc, won't it look crappy on my tv? i thought progressive is good for computer screens and interlaced is only good for tv.

If I can't make it look like film, then my only choice is to buy the upcoming panasonic 24p progressive mode camera., yes?

or maybe a panavision for $150,000 :)

Bye,
AB

have you tried searching the web on this subject? there are volumes of information in the form of debates, shooting tips, etc...

this is what I get out of it so far...
1 - I should forget about trying to make my video look like something it isn't and instead focus on making good looking video.
2 - there are physical properties of film that contribute to its 'look' that cannot be reproduced by any any digital video camera or post effect.
3 - lighting is one of the most important factors in shooting video for the film look. (search web for tips)
4 - the frame rate is one of many factors that makes film look the way it does, so if you want to recreate the sense of a 'film look' you might have to adjust a lot of things, starting with the camera and lens and shooting style, etc...

the first item was the most important one though. :D

- ben

Bravo! Ben you have been reading what all of us have been saying! I see the "how can I make it look like professional film?" constantly and the answer is ..... (see Ben's post)

Make GOOD video!

Even the new Sony HD 24P used for the latest Star Wars film, does not look like film! You can get some of the qualities that make film attractive by paying attention to lighting, good composition, and great direction. Good optics are also critical and not available in 'prosumer' gear.

One option which is used in the professional world for reasons other than 'to get the film look' is to shoot and edit in HD and then print it to 35mm. It is difficult to tell the difference between film aquasision and HD when it is done that way.

The user who started this post did so correctly. He asked how does he get the sense of film. That we can do if the source video is very good. Lighting being the most important factor. After that soften the contrast a little. You may even want to soften or add a tiny tiny amount of blur. Shift the color in the midtones a little. Each clip will need slightly different settings. These will give the viewer a clue as to the sense of film even though it will not duplicate the look. One of the senses of film that I love is that it hides things in the distance as they go darker. The contrast and blur help this illussion. The other thing about film is the wonderful depth of field determination. That is hard to get without the best conditions for video. Proper lighting and a good camera are critical for good depth of field control.

K

Yeah, and I'd say: when you record, put a good neutral density filter in front of your lens. You'll reduce depth of field; the darker the filter, the shorter the depth of field. And light the set in consequence; you already got the frame so it's easy to control...

kkolbo is right on the money...the golden rule is crap in - crap out...
light your video like you're shooting film...i've found that using grain DOES NOT make video look like film...i've been semi successful using the filmfx (www.bigfx.com - WHO SHOULD PORT TO VEGAS ATTN. SONIC FOUNDRY!!!) plug in...getting video to look like film is more about the motion of the subject...if you already have after effects (or premiere, among others) you can get filmfx relatively cheap ($500.00 i think)...use the 3:2 pull down for the "film like" motion and letterbox ratio...then desaturate the picture slightly using either the native color correction tools or those in the plug in...experiment...or go buy an arriflex and some celluloid!!! ha ha ha!!!

I've always wondered what people mean when they talk about getting a film look on TV. It seems to me that the only true difference is frame rate. Of course there is a difference in the color gamut between film and NTSC, but mostly those seem to be noticable only when compared side by side. When viewed independently the colors are only relative to themselves. And with that being the case, proper balance is what becomes the key factor. I mean do people consider DVD's to have a "film" look? If so, DVD's are definitely in the NTSC color space and that would rule out the color difference.

That would leave frame rate, which I would imagine may create a surealistic look by having a slower rate. Is this what people are after?

Personally, if it weren't for the extreme increase in film or tape material, I would rather see frame rates go up to about 60fps. At 24fps my eyes always come out a little sore after watching a movie in the cinema. But, I think if frame rates were boosted up to 60fps it would give a much more realistic look. Possibly almost indistinguishable from real life, were it not for the two dimensional surface it was projected on.

Sorry for getting way off the problem at hand. What do you guys think?

JBJones

jb I think different people are after different looks.

I suspect a lot of people who say they are looking for the film look are actually looking for the 50 million dollar hollywood production studio look.

others are looking for the more random grain effect (caused by using chemicals instead of optical sensors to pick up light)

and a lot of people (like me) are more looking for that film motion look as opposed to the liquid smooth video motion. I've found this has to do with shooting style, camera movement, progressive vs interlaced recording mode, using lower shutter speeds, and I know I'm forgetting stuff.

you notice every once in a while during say... the X-Files, it suddenly looks cheesy for a second more like soap opera video, usually during a special effect with fast motion. that's the difference I'm after.

in a cinematic experience I like the slow 24p. for video games, I prefer 90fps. for video I shoot 30p usually with 1/60th shutter speed and a ND filter (using canon gl1). since my destination format is usually video for PCs, or DVDs, the progressive shooting mode suits me perfectly. I'd be happy if I never had to see an interlaced scan-line the rest of my days :D

>One option which is used in the professional world for reasons other than 'to get the film look' is to shoot and edit in HD and then print it to 35mm. It is difficult to tell the difference between film aquasision and HD when it is done that way.
------------------------------------

right, k

even if you have the camera, the optics, the lights, the pro crew, you still won't have the total 'film look' without the film. there is the matter of chemicals stimulated by light vs. light hitting a CCD grid. each frame of film has a slightly different grain, while the grid of light sensitive pixels on a CCD is unchanging frame to frame. the final transfer to film takes care of whatever was missing from the 'look' due to the light gathering process. someday PCs/cameras will be sophisticated enough to simulate the chemical process that takes place when a photon hits film, but by then I'll be shooting exclusively in hologram which i predict will give monochrome its deserved renaissance in the 2010's :D

Until they bring out 192 bit full color holography ;)

When the IMAX DV Cam???? hahahahahahha!