Does anyone have any tips for making my short vids look less home-video-ish and more film-ish? I'm shooting on MiniDV.
While besides post programs like Cinelook you should use a Promist filter on your camera for everything you shoot. It will give it a more soft film- like look.
i think this website is very helpfull http://scs.student.virginia.edu/~fms-uva/professional/
Quote from: cecil b. dementedi think this website is very helpfull http://scs.student.virginia.edu/~fms-uva/professional/
shucks, you stole my thunder :D
The best thing that can be done is to shoot it with a film mentality. Putting effort into achieving a narow focus, will yield the best results. For a very obvious example of this type of focus, take a look at the closing conversation between Lucy Liu and Uma on the Kill Bill trailer. This is however very hard to achieve using most dv/video cameras but it can be done by using a neutral density filter (forcing you to keep the iris wide open) and moving the camera away from the subject and zooming in, manual focus etc. In my experience, this is the best way, without resorting to cheap tactics like adding grain, it creates a very clean film like look.
Narrow focus? What is that?!
Where is the neutral density filter!?
What would moving the camera away from the subject and zooming in, do?
AHH!....?
Goto www.dv.com
Sign up for the community there....and everything will become clear.
I was kind of hoping for a quick and easy explanation...
I went to www.dv.com and all I found were reviews for cameras, which I wasn't looking for.
Calm down Tiff. If you're willing to shell out a million dollars or however much those greedy bastards are offering, get Adobe After Effects.
QuoteCalm down Tiff. If you're willing to shell out a million dollars or however much those greedy bastards are offering, get Adobe After Effects.
Screw that! Download After Effects from Kazaa. That's what I did and it works perfect!
Not that I'm much of an expert, but I shoot Mini-DV and I attempt to make it look more film like by:
1. Over-exposing it slightly. I open the iris up more than normal.
2. Shooting black and white.
3. Using really simple filters.
4. This one is really weird but after I import the DV footage into my editing program and edit it, I export it back to my camera and transfer the mini-DV to VHS and THEN I record the televison screen with my DV camera as the tape of what I shot plays. I then transfer the footage back again. It seems strange and like a lot of work but it works most of the time.
Again, I'm no professional or anything but I found those things work for me.
Sounds interesting, BA. You should put some of that stuff online for us to see.
b/a - do you have a special lens when you film the tv?
Quote from: XixaxSounds interesting, BA. You should put some of that stuff online for us to see.
www.jasonsound.8m.net
Although most of my new stuff isn't up yet. I am working on a comp. tape and a couple of shorts now, hopefully they will be up on the site in a couple months or so.
Quote from: cecil b. dementedb/a - do you have a special lens when you film the tv?
No. I have a couple of filters that I use though. My "set-up" is ultra cheap. Beyond no budget. My camera is a piece of shit too but it works for me for now. I have my eyes on that new Panasonic that shoots 24fps though.
I used to use Promist filters for this purpose, but while it does soften the image, it also makes it muddier. I don't reccomend them anymore. Shoot clean, unless you're going for that specific look.
The most important thing to do is to light properly. Overexposing can hide some lighting problems, or make for any interesting stylistic choice (I do it all the time), but you should really concentrate on getting the lighting done right. That's the key.
For proof...check out the trailer for my first DV movie, Lullaby, that I shot without really working on the lighting. It was one of my first attemtps at cinematography, and it looks pretty bad. You can find it at www.road-dog-productions.com
Then check out the trailer for a movie I'm editing called Mere Acquaintance at www.tablegirl.com
It looks really awesome because the DP lit it just as he would have lit it for film.
Both movies were shot on the exact same camera (my XL-1), without any filter (other than a neutral density when necessary)
P.S. Although on second thought, I don't know how well you'll be able to differentiate between them, since you lose a lot when compressing for the internet.
use magic bullet
http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/products/story/0,24330,3408656,00.html
b/a you're my saddle creek buddy right?
Quote from: rudieobb/a you're my saddle creek buddy right?
we aren't talking about the record label are we?
Quote from: 82use magic bullet
http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/products/story/0,24330,3408656,00.html
Magic Bullet's great if you can afford a grand to get it and before you get all "KAZAA" on me... Last two files I tried to download had viruses, so no more, buying it legal if someone won't burn me a copy...
Quote from: michael alessandroQuote from: 82use magic bullet
http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/products/story/0,24330,3408656,00.html
Magic Bullet's great if you can afford a grand to get it and before you get all "KAZAA" on me... Last two files I tried to download had viruses, so no more, buying it legal if someone won't burn me a copy...
Well... True I do enjoy *purchacing* software.. but also im not dumb enough not to either buy or download anti virus software first :)
Quote from: GhostboyThen check out the trailer for a movie I'm editing called Mere Acquaintance at www.tablegirl.com
Woaw, this trailer looked good indeed. Because of the lighting you said before and also because it's in widescreen - how did you do that ? - Great trailer, hope you cut the movie as good as the trailer looks, it's defintely a trailer that makes you want to see the movie.
A funny sidenote is that the main character is named after me :twisted: hehe, Tommy and then my last name changed with one letter... ahah, ghostboy who wrote the script and where did you guys get that name from!! 8)
btw: here's the link for the trailer: http://tablegirl.com/media/ma2quicktime.mov
Quote from: tommy_bothQuote from: GhostboyThen check out the trailer for a movie I'm editing called Mere Acquaintance at www.tablegirl.com
Woaw, this trailer looked good indeed. Because of the lighting you said before and also because it's in widescreen - how did you do that ? - Great trailer, hope you cut the movie as good as the trailer looks, it's defintely a trailer that makes you want to see the movie.
He used a Canon XL-1 which has a 16:9 option.
Yes, but true to form, the 16:9 was never used. The movie was shot in 4:3, but the shots were composed with 2:35:1 in mind. Then I just added all the mattes in post.
The guy who wrote it and stars in it (and runs that tablegirl site) came up with the name Tommy Botch, I'm not sure where he got it. The script was pretty damn bad. A buddy of mine (JMJ, the guy with the lipstick avatar, actually), directed it just to gain the experience. Then while I was editing it, we pretty much rewrote the entire movie, rearranging the entire point of the film into something...good, hopefully.
Quote from: GhostboyYes, but true to form, the 16:9 was never used. The movie was shot in 4:3, but the shots were composed with 2:35:1 in mind. Then I just added all the mattes in post.
The guy who wrote it and stars in it (and runs that tablegirl site) came up with the name Tommy Botch, I'm not sure where he got it. The script was pretty damn bad. A buddy of mine (JMJ, the guy with the lipstick avatar, actually), directed it just to gain the experience. Then while I was editing it, we pretty much rewrote the entire movie, rearranging the entire point of the film into something...good, hopefully.
out of curiosity.. any reason you didn't use the 16:9 feature?
The XL-1 and all other prosumer cameras have square CCD chips, which means the 16:9 image is electronically compressed into a rectangle. This cuts down quite a bit on vertical resolution and color saturation. So if you want a sharper, more vibrant picture, shoot in 4:3 and then crop it later. Or you can buy an anamorphic lens from Century Optics, but that's really expensive.
I saw this crazy adapter once you can buy for Canon cameras (the one I saw was on a xm1) and it did true 2.35:1. The adapter was almost the size of the camera.
Yeah, that's the mini35 adapter from PS Technic. It's awesome, but it costs about four times as much as the camera. Basically what it does is allow you to use 35mm lenses on the XL-1 (or other similar miniDV cams), which increases the picture quality almost exponentially (a lot of people underestimate the amount of image quality that is dependent on the lens). Of course, if you buy the adapter, then you're still gonna need the lenses, which usually cost upwards of 50 grand apiece (thank god for rentals!).
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pstechnik.de%2Fdatasheets%2Fpics%2Fdigital%2Fd_mini_1_l.jpg&hash=be2e92e1774321e650931d8c44fc6017cc89d7bf)
Thats crazy. The one I saw was some tacky japanese thing for $500
Yeah I've been wanting to shoot 16:9 untill I read that my Sony VX2000 just does "fake widescreen" and instead just cuts off image. I was thinking of shooting with a wide angle lens and putting tape on the lcd monitor to where it would be cropped at and do it in premiere, so it looks "cool".
As for the film look.
How's cinelook? I have after effects (*cough from someone) and I saw cinelook on ebay from some guy for 15 bucks, "full working beta" he says....
I'm working on something now that I want to make look like an old 50s educational video and maybe even have the "reel" sputter at the end. But, I'm unsure if that is possible.
I have cinelook and think it works really well.You need to do some tweaking and its best to light your scenes with the idea that cinelook will be applied, but it works very well.
Quote from: michael alessandroI have cinelook and think it works really well.You need to do some tweaking and its best to light your scenes with the idea that cinelook will be applied, but it works very well.
Lighting-wise....what do you need to compensate for???...for instance....does cinelook work best + or - a stop???? shutter speed???.....how do you compensate....and does cinelook really give that great of a look????
I saw a short film projected from miniDV recently...shot on a PAL PD150, and cinelooked, and the only time I could really tell it was DV was in the closeups. I've never played around with it myself, but now I really want to.
I'd imagine you probably need to overexpose a stop or two, if anything?
I would assume underexpose a stop or so. At least that's what's recommended for cams like the agdvx100.
Quote from: BobbyYeah I've been wanting to shoot 16:9 untill I read that my Sony VX2000 just does "fake widescreen" and instead just cuts off image. I was thinking of shooting with a wide angle lens and putting tape on the lcd monitor to where it would be cropped at and do it in premiere, so it looks "cool".
Yikes. i dunno.. are you going to digitally correct the distortion in post or something?
You'll need to overexpose slightly, but the best thing to do is run some tests to find your best settings, don't go in blind and trust it will all wokr out in post.
As for the 16x9 SOny "fake" widescreen, um... So... Just shoot in the widescreen mode if you want a widescreen or letterbox look, then shoot in widescreen and just frame accordingly.
Don't mess about with shooting 4:3 and cutting off in premiere and letterboxing and so forth. Not if you want a widescreen look. Your shooting on video, not film, so anamorphic lenses and 70mm aspect ratios are better left to the larger more expensive formats.
Shoot 16x9 use filters and lenses and light well and edit well and you'll be great. Trust it.
Quote from: michael alessandro
Don't mess about with shooting 4:3 and cutting off in premiere and letterboxing and so forth. Not if you want a widescreen look. Your shooting on video, not film, so anamorphic lenses and 70mm aspect ratios are better left to the larger more expensive formats.
Shoot 16x9 use filters and lenses and light well and edit well and you'll be great. Trust it.
Yes, except that I still think it's preferable to shoot 4:3 and crop in post.
Yeah the anamorphic squeeze is pretty annoying unless you have a monitor that can deal with it.
i was going to say use the mini35 adapter...
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dvinfo.net%2Fcanon%2Fimages%2Fcinetech1.jpg&hash=9ff782d56ce9405f8df05821aa6105bab90b56e6)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cinevideotech.com%2FfuseBox%2FnewRentEquip%2Fpics%2FfsPicID_27_dv35mm-6B.jpg&hash=23ebf65c3db0988615123bed32b0e76ba7cad2e5)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dvinfo.net%2Fcanon%2Fimages%2Fcinetecha.jpg&hash=1f68492573be861f3f706df9b0e465c48dc6081d)
so whats this used for???
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dvinfo.net%2Fcanon%2Fimages%2Feos1200b.jpg&hash=e97f08903e2a642ae9523b912fe95bb62797a8b9)
The mini35 adapter lets you mount 35mm lenses on your XL-1. So yeah, if you have a 35mm anamporphic lens, that'll do the trick. It's just that most people can't afford it. If you skip back a page in this thread, we talked a little a bit about it already.
If you don't quit doing that I'm just going to have to close the curtains...
Isn't the general rule that you need to go about 10mm longer when using digital as opposed to film? When using 35mm lenses on the XL-1, wouldn't you have to use a 50 instead of a 40 and so on? Digital has a greater depth of field.
QuoteYeah, that's the mini35 adapter from PS Technic. It's awesome, but it costs about four times as much as the camera. Basically what it does is allow you to use 35mm lenses on the XL-1 (or other similar miniDV cams), which increases the picture quality almost exponentially (a lot of people underestimate the amount of image quality that is dependent on the lens). Of course, if you buy the adapter, then you're still gonna need the lenses, which usually cost upwards of 50 grand apiece (thank god for rentals!).
seems like too much work why not just save enough money for Super 16 or 35mm?
Rental is cheaper. You can rent an XL-1 for like $500 per week. An Arri 16mm camera will do about $500 per day, not including lenses, mags, film to shoot on, etc. By renting an XL-1 with the adapter and lenses, you're going to be cheaper. MUCH cheaper.
or just get a studio to let you make your movie :)
Quote from: mutinycoIsn't the general rule that you need to go about 10mm longer when using digital as opposed to film? When using 35mm lenses on the XL-1, wouldn't you have to use a 50 instead of a 40 and so on? Digital has a greater depth of field.
I know with anything digital there is a leap up in focal length.... same principles apply for video too....But for instance, a digital SLR still camera, is 1.5x (roughly depending on the body) greater in distance....meaning, if you want to shoot with a 17mm wide angle lens, it's really closer to a 24mm lens....so shooting stuff wide tends to be a problem....
Now with something like an XL-1....I personally think the zoom is already pretty decent....so the only place I could see using a ...say Canon EOS lens... is for extremely wide shots or macro shots....The Arri adapters, well, I have never used, but crap, looks sweet....
There's a nice little chart on Canon's website that will explain it better...
http://www.canondv.com/xl1s/a_lenses.html
With a XL-1 you shoot 4:3.
If you want it 16:9, do you squeeze it in post or do you shoot with it in mind instead? Shoot with head space and then just crop it? Perhaps even put tape on the LCD display?
I haven't really shot on DV before so I'm learning... :?
IMHO, unless your are really looking for that one special look, it doesn't really matter what you shoot on. Have a good story and you can make a flipbook out of post-it notes. Of course, that's over simplifying, but you get the idea. The most important thing is to just get it shot.
Quote from: metroshaneIMHO, unless your are really looking for that one special look, it doesn't really matter what you shoot on. Have a good story and you can make a flipbook out of post-it notes. Of course, that's over simplifying, but you get the idea. The most important thing is to just get it shot.
I know, thank you. I don't want it to look like film, I just want it closer to 16:9.
That's important to me to. In fact, when I take still photos, I often crop to 16:9 for personal astethic reasons.
The JVC HD cam shoots in native 16:9. But with the xl-1, you get to keep a little more resolution if you squeeze rather than crop. But IMHO, resolution is overrated anyway.