Well my friend, it's got to do with a bit of everything. It's not just the physical properties of the film itself that make it look that way.
It also has to do with the lighting, the framing of the subjects and the movement of the camera. It has a lot to do with the lens used to shoot the footage and the Depth of Field (foreground crisp and clear while the background is slightly out of focus). The cameras used to shoot the movie also shoot in 24p, as opposed to 60i, and they have manual controls that allow them to change the look of the video or film. Not to mention, they shoot in a 16x9 format, versus the full screen that most tv shows use.

'In the life that man creates for himself, he too, creates his demise... and his legacy.'

You're citing variables that could affect the look of either film or video. I am saying: if all things were equal (as much as possible, given the difference in frame rates and other variables), if you made things as comparable as possible, the very character of film is different from video. Why is this?

Thank you.

For one thing, video is generally interlaced and has a linear response to light while film is progressive and has a logarithmic response to light.

But, as mentioned, the big difference is that Hollywood can afford to spend millions of dollars on lighting. Well-lit video can look barely distinguishable from film.

I was just watching a trailer for a movie shot on DV, and the two biggest things that showed up the low budget were the flat lighting and the lack of production design (e.g. using real locations without dressing them at all). It's amazing how fake real places (bars, offices, etc) look when you put a camera in there.

Yes, you're right, all of those variables can and do affect both film and video. However, in the case of a behind the scenes video, chances are that it's being shot on a far cheaper camera, possibly even a simple miniDV camera with a cheap lens. When a director shoots a movie, he knows exactly where he wants to camera to move, and they set up the lighting to accomodate that. A second camera, showing an alternate point of view, likely with grips and booms and other cameras in the frame, will not give you the same look that the other camera would.

If you had an HDV miniDV camcorder, using the same lenses and lighting and experience as a film camera, it would become quite difficult to distinguish between the two.

Film also has a fine grain that video doesn't have, simply because it's actually an image developed on film. The 24p is a large part of it as well. It moves things at a slightly different pace than typical video, and it takes it just enough out of the realm of reality to be considered art.

'In the life that man creates for himself, he too, creates his demise... and his legacy.'

I second that. A shot done with proper lighting and lenses using a digital camera can mimic film very closely. Conversely a shot using regular day lighting and lenses using film can look soap operish.

A big part of what you are seeing in "soap operish" and TV news video vs film is that they light everything so no matter where the subject goes they are well lit. This tends to flatten the image and hide shadows. Properly lit 'film' will have lighting on the actors so they are particularly visible against the background, as well as back lighting on them to help them stand out from the background. Lastly the background will be light to make sure the whole package goes together. This all makes things a little more real in one way and less real in others. It makes it cinematic.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

Thanks to all who responded. Rjschwarz, can you clarify what you mean by TV news and video lighting?

I often think the problem is that they light those studios too brightly, everywhere, so you can see everything but it's not particularly poetic. Is that what you were saying? Thanks.

That is exactly what I'm saying. TV news and sitcoms and SoapOperas have a set with a missing wall where all the camera stuff and lighting goes. The set is blasted with light to hide any and all shadows so that no matter which camera is used (standard sitcoms use 3, I don't know what the other use) they don't find one actors face blocked by shadow. This lighting flattens the image and creates a visual effect you notice but often can't put a finger on.

Some tv shows and pretty much all movies light shot per shot so the lighting and shadows and backlighting and such are prepared to make the actors stand out from the background. Sometimes light so they can move dramatically into and out of lighting. Sometimes (especially film noir) the shadows play an important role. Lighting becomes a huge part of the look.

To put it another way, what you consider the 'film' look almost always has a cinematographer or Director of Photography using one camera who's job is to get the lighting perfect. On News and soap operas he's much more consided with framing the shots in the multiple cameras and following the blocking than with the lighting.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

Okay, exactly, exactly. This explains how i have been feeling about these shows. "Flat" is an interesting and probably accurate way to describe it. The absence of shadow takes away the aesthetic element of depth? I see it. I would rather watch Night of the Hunter than a television newscast.

Have you seen Now, though, on PBS? They light that with an interesting reddish and muted light... so it is actually somewhat pleasing... rather than just blindingly hot.

You know what? I realized this week thinking about this stuff and my original question: it is as if video is "faster" than film. I noticed that film almost seems to slow things down in a beautiful way... so you notice the poetry of the subject's gestures, or Minghella's aerial shots of the desert, or whatever.

Whereas it seems like video is faster.

Does that make sense?

Your description about film being slower is accurate literally and poetically.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

cant you change the framerate of digital? I dont see how framerate could be a limitation given current technology. And what law says that film has to be 24fps? couldn't the fps even be changed dynamically if you wanted to?

quote:

---

What law says that film has to be 24fps?

---

The law of customer expectations. If you see a movie that doesn't look right it throws you off. A movie shot at a different rate or lit poorly will throw you off equally. A clever filmmaker can probably use this.

Decent digital cameras can all reproduce the 24fps these days.

If you shoot at one speed and adjust the speed in editing there will be a quality drop.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

quote:

---

If you shoot at one speed and adjust the speed in editing there will be a quality drop.

---

Could you explain this? Theres never a quality drop in slow or fast motion video. Is there an example of what your speaking of somewhere?

When you reduce the frame rate you lose frames in the process. That could mean syncing problems with the sound or jumpy motion depending upon how your program drops the frames. I'm sure someone on this board can explain further but I imagine nobody would pay extra for 24p cameras if everyone could do the same thing during editing.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

so when you buy a camera it is set at a certain framerate? you would think it being digital and all that that would be an programmable setting. If thats true then how is slow and fast motion done? i doubt you have to buy a whole new camera to do it.