Comments

Jessariah67 wrote on 6/16/2002, 5:49 PM
It's two VERY different mediums...

You can use some filters or grain effects to simulate film, but video is video and film is film. We see more and video today -- and the cameras are getting better -- but I don't think you'll ever be able to match the depth you get from film with a video camera.

Of course, film is also a lot more expensive and involved.

If I'm wrong, I'd be interested to see how this can be done for my own projects.
FadeToBlack wrote on 6/16/2002, 7:56 PM
SonyDennis wrote on 6/17/2002, 11:11 AM
If you limit the comparison to the 24p vs. 30i cadence of film vs. video, and some grain, you can simulate the former in the latter. See the "intercutting film and video" tutorial:

ftp://porker.sonicfoundry.com
user: dude
password: sweet

Directory: Sample Projects / intercutting film and video

Video won't have the dynamic range of film for some time, but it will happen. I've read about some high-dynamic range CCD experiments.

///d@
FuTz wrote on 6/17/2002, 9:23 PM
...And there is this HD cam Sony developped with Panavision... but we're talking very high numbers here, plus post-production ("DaVinci" processing (commonly referred to as "film look") wich works wonders, etc...)

Consumer cams will never have that film quality... 'til at least a "FEW LOT" more years...

You can work your lightning, choose the best depth of field and use some "tricks" when you get to editing to achieve something relatively satisfying but, still, it'll never be like real 16mm film. The best is to work the picture quality you want from the very start, e.g. while you shoot, NOT just counting on post-prod (editing) to achieve that.