There is something different about the way a making of the movie clip looks compared to the finsihed product that *feels* like a movie.

What is that?

Tim: Have you ever watched the making of a movie where they show the filming going on, then cut the actual movie clip? They look very different.

You mean the results look different, even though there was a camera taking both the actual shots and the 'documentary' shots at the same time?

First of all, and most important, the actual shots are taken on film -- real film, with all the depth of color and richness of the emulsion. Color film is more than 70 years old, and has had plenty of time to develop (no pun intended) just the right combination of exposure speed, reciprocity (the depth of color in the different layers of the emulsion), etc., plus cameras with very sophisticated depth of field and focus options. The lighting and film are chosen to match each other, and regardless, the lighting is set to match the camera shooting the film, not the one shooting the documentary.

And don't forget the importance of sound. The documentary isn't catching the real dialog, it hasn't passed by the sound editor yet, the sound effects and Foley material hasn't been done yet (see http://www.marblehead.net/foley/whatisitman.html), and there's no music.

You're missing the montage that the editor will do later -- just count the number of separate shots in an average action scene! (If you can keep up with them.) You're also not seeing the backgrounds and effects that will bring coherency to the scene.

And all these are brought together with that all-important director's eye.

The documentary video does not take advantage of the lighting or the position the director wanted, but more importantly, shooting on video is terribly crisp in ways that aren't always welcome. Panning and zooming produce visibly different results because of how motion is capture on film vs. video.

(Many 'making of' documentaries were shot on film in earlier days, and they have a much closer sense of the actual results.)

My friend Ed Pincus wrote the "Guide to Filmmaking" that was released in the 1960s and revised in the 1980s, and he absolutely won't go near video because he feels it doesn't yet have the richness that can be captured on film. That may be changing as the technology offers more options, but even to my eyes, video is still terribly antiseptic, a much colder eye.

Dennis

Film's resolution and contrast ratio is unquestionably better than video, yielding the "richer" depth and color many people talk about.

But I have to agree with this statement the most:
"The lighting and film are chosen to match each other, and regardless, the lighting is set to match the camera shooting the film, not the one shooting the documentary."

Lighting is KEY. You can make film look like crap with bad lighting. By the same token, you can make video look amazingly good if you pay attention to lighting.

Good lenses & camera's can only get you so far.

If you get the chance, watch "Painting with Pixels", one of the extras on the "O Brother Where Art Thou?" *DVD. It discusses the way film used to be treated to give the desired effects and the way it can now be digitised and electronicaly processed.

* In Europe at any rate - other versions may not have the same 'special features'.

Cheers

Ian G.

I can't claim to know all about making great movies, but I used to be a pretty good still photographer. From that perspective, I have to agree that lighting is the key. I spent many hours in my school's photo studio playing with lighting and it is really amazing the range of results you can get in a photo by varying the light effects.

Another key variable in still photography is aperture. That determines your depth of field, and this can make a huge difference in the visual impact of your subject. Do you want a soft blurred background that highlights your subject, or do you want a crisp background that pulls in a second subject? That is something that I don't think gets much attention in video, at least not from me.

Personally (and I'm no expert ) I think the main thing that makes a Movie different from the documentary about the making of the movie is the sound.

I know lighting is v important etc. but the sound makes the difference.

I've been doing some vids of my godson. It wasn't until the music soundtrack was put on that they really came together. If you haven't tried it yet, folks, you don't know what you're missing.

This is all very intersting. I hadn't thought about the fact of film being better quality and the lighting issues.

Makes sense, and guess that's why they can charge $8.50 a ticket ;-)

-Tim

If you get the chance, watch "Painting with Pixels", one of the extras on the "O Brother Where Art Thou?" *DVD.

This featurette is indeed on the North American version of the "O Brother" DVD, and it's really cool!

Ted

Certainly camera lighting, etc is key. I did a video while in the front car of a roller coaster. I couldnt wait, thought you would hear the sounds of the track, and relive the speed on screen. Boy was I all wet. For sound you mainly heard wind hitting the mic, and for visual? shakey as heck. It was cool seeing the cork screws, and the loops, but is pretty weak overall. Thats another hobby of mine, to video coasters I am on. the_ripper