krozm.com

         

Just curious, what gamma settings are you guys looking at those videos? 1.8 or 2.2?

Feels a lot of videos I watch lately have been extra dark. Is that a cinematography trend, or is everyone working in 1.8 gamma space?

Anyhow, the video was cool, very current.

         

most of the new HD formats (redcam, sony 900, F35, 5D mk2 d21) look more filmic for some reason when underexposed.

its about lattitude and overexposure.....if you over expose celluloid then you can bring it back, same with the shadows, lets you dig in there......but with HD......the better HD formats......if you overexpose then its gone, gone forever......zeros and ones cannot compete with magic silver crystals.

         

nothing can look like film, except film.

no matter how well it's lit or how good the dop is, it ain't got the soul you get from film.

         

(dark = new black.)

         

Yeah I guess dark is the new black. I was just wondering if it was done for aesthetic reasons, or because we were working / watching it in different gamma settings.

         

I you watch this on a quality monitor like EIZO its just looks fine. ;)

And this is wrong: "nothing can look like film, except film". What about RED.

Look at the "Charlotte Gainsbourg - Heaven Can Wait" Video here: vimeo.com

If you miss the grain you can put in some grain in AE. And it will just look like film.

And I think we all damaged by Hollywood Night Shoots. "Eternal Sunshine of a spotless mind" got some very dark shoots, too. Not typical hollywood. And thats good.

         

Red does not look like film. It can look pretty good but it's not the same thing as film

         

IMO the technology to have the latitude of film is already here. But the resource cost is too high. Look at the latitude of HDR images. It should be possible to do the same with video by capturing each frame with multiple sensors. Each sensor covering a different range.

         

Luk, you make me laugh. "you can always put grain back in AE". I bet you watch everything on a computer monitor on compressed files. You ever graded 35mm against Red dpx files in a proper suite on a pro monitor? My guess is no, right? It's got nothing to do with grain as film stocks are superb these days, it's about the texture and lattitude of the image. Ask any dop or telecine op.

         

@amorphic youre right you can always overxpose on film, because with overxposure you have the image on the negative, which you can always grade/ manipulate in post. overexposure is bad for video, because it cannot recover from blown out images, yeah, agree. theres's also a difference between how two hd cameras can hndle underexposure. i used one canon 5d and one sony cinelata, both with lens adapters and the little shit (canon 5d) can handle less light/underexposure better (less noisy than good ole cinealta). is it the sensor? because both lens adapters were eating up about 1 1/2 f stops

and now, if you want your videos to look more cinematic, just print the goddamn final transfer on a more saturated film stock, like vision premier and there you have it - video that looks just like film :D i agree with mandy_warhol - thers nothing like film

         

anyone know / or have experience with HD to film transfer? / or know of music video examples using this process?

I know (pretty certain) this sweet spot from a couple of years back used the process: vimeo.com

         

If you're gonna pay for a scan to film (which ain't cheap, especially for a music video length) and then pay for a tk after that, then why not just shoot film in the first place??? It can, in some cases, work out cheaper than shooting HD or Red. Just get a good producer to hustle a little.

I've only seen stuff scanned to film if it's going to be used as a spot in a cinema, but if you really want to do it, speak to a post house as you may be wasting your money (that you could have spent on film stock!!)

however, legion, the control over the final print is only as good as the source footage, so if you shoot anything on video/HD you STILL won't have the same aesthetic or lattitude range as film. No matter what anyone tells you.

         

mandy, i was joking, see the emoticon of course it all depends on the source material and of course it makes more sense to shoot on film stock if youve got the money to do that.

         

@ legion The sensor on the 5D is what makes it such a great low light camera. It's actually bigger than the sensor on the RED.

         

@mandy_warhol: That with the grain was a joke. Because some people miss the grain... shooting with RED. And its absurd.

I'm totaly with you. But I think RED is very very close to 35mm film. he look of a Canon 5D... ist allways that "Photo Look". But the RED is very close to film.

If you look at films like "Collateral" or "Slumdog Millionair"... I can't see whats film and whats digital. But if I watch "Heaven can Wait" on Vimeo I know its the RED. Because I shoot with the RED, too. But if i see this in cinema... maybe I can't see it. Don't know.

BUT. More and more people are getting "Image sick"... or I don't know how to call it. Look at films like "Taxi Driver". The Nigth scenes are so dark"... and there are so many mistakes. But fuck that. It works. And today every image has to be brilliant.

Same with the Cuts. More Cuts.. because you can cut it offline. More Effects... because you can do it. More "Collor Correction"... every fucking singel frame... a little more blue ind the dark tones, and this and that.

Of course... its great. But i still love to see films like "Rocky I". The film looks so washed out. Like straight from film. And there is no "Cinema Version" and than an extra "DVD Version". There is one version. The images is not brilliant but it works. Its als blue and grey and washed out.

         

calm down, luk, you'll have aneurysm. i'm moving onto another thread ;)

         

idiot.

On Arte (German, France) Television I saw a discussion 2 weeks ago. Everyone around me discuss "those things"... like "Slow Movement". Or what the eye is able to see. etc. keep on masturbating for real film experience. imho with the red and technical tricks you can come pretty close to film. 99,9 %.

Some of the guys here sound like CD is much better than mp3 (Even if its encoded in trilions of kilobytes. I can hear the differenc)... And all i just say is: If the song is good... than its also good on an old mono radio speakers. A good image with depth of field is imprtant. But the whole... film is better than digital. its just "History". Its like Vinyl and CD. Fact is... Film got "errors"... but everyone grow up with it... and now there are so many Cinematic Idiots out there that say: YOU CAN NEVER REACH THE LOOK OF FILM... digital. So what. I don't care.

         

no need for insults, luk.

you are entitled to your opinion. we all are.

         

"no need for insults" ??? "calm down, luk, you'll have aneurysm" ....

ähm. whatever.

         

Nerd rage!!!