1. Good lighting.
2. 35mm lens adapter.

The former makes it look like a movie that someone spent money on, the latter gives you much more control over depth of field.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Machinehead

I'm shooting a film on DV, and editing using Adobe Premiere Pro 2.0.
I wanted to know if there is a combination of video effects that will achieve the look of say, a film shot on actual film. Just more depth, and a professional look. Or if there's any programs I can look into that can do this.

---

Shoot 24p frame rate, use a softening filter over the lens such as a Black Pro Mist. Tiffen now makes software to simulate any of their lens filters, not sure how well the software works.

Linux, the choice of a GNU generation.
http://subzerolinux.org

Are there any editing programs that can create a similar, if not as impressive, effect?

Magic bullet plug in for FCP and After Effects can replicate some of the film look, but really it's in the shooting and lighting preparation that the magic happens 😉

Thanks a lot. ?.?

quote:

---

Originally posted by rizzo

Magic bullet plug in for FCP and After Effects can replicate some of the film look, but really it's in the shooting and lighting preparation that the magic happens 😉

---

Yes I have been reading a book on lighting for DV, from a veteran expert on the matter. He explains lighting is huge. TV broadcast uses more flat lighting, but movies strive for their 3D cinematic look by creating rembrandt style lighting--that is a big part of making films look like cinema and not tv or cheap soap operas or documentaries.

Linux, the choice of a GNU generation.
http://subzerolinux.org

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beowulf

quote:

---

Originally posted by rizzo

Magic bullet plug in for FCP and After Effects can replicate some of the film look, but really it's in the shooting and lighting preparation that the magic happens 😉

---

Yes I have been reading a book on lighting for DV, from a veteran expert on the matter. He explains lighting is huge. TV broadcast uses more flat lighting, but movies strive for their 3D cinematic look by creating rembrandt style lighting--that is a big part of making films look like cinema and not tv or cheap soap operas or documentaries.

Linux, the choice of a GNU generation.
http://subzerolinux.org

---

exactly, people using film cameras usually have more time and money to spend on lighting so they do it well, whereas those using video tend to be on a tighter budget or tighter time constraints, so the lighting is often rushed and appears very flat. Nothing to do with the medium, just economics ?:)?

quote:

---

Originally posted by rizzo
exactly, people using film cameras usually have more time and money to spend on lighting so they do it well, whereas those using video tend to be on a tighter budget or tighter time constraints, so the lighting is often rushed and appears very flat. Nothing to do with the medium, just economics ?:)?

---

Softboxes and other lighting equipment certainly is fantastic, but I can also add that coming from a 35mm photography background it is amazing what reflected light bounced off a $4 piece of foamcore can do to fill shadows and help create 3D Rembrandt lighting; sunlight is so powerful, it can easily be reflected; of course that necessitates being outdoors or using available light in a room from spilled sunlight coming in. In fact I found a gold reflector reflects the light so intensely it is almost too much, requiring some distancing from the model. One softbox plus a piece of cheap foamcore could work magic I think if used correctly.

Linux, the choice of a GNU generation.
http://subzerolinux.org

quote:

---

whereas those using video tend to be on a tighter budget or tighter time constraints

---

That's me!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Machinehead

quote:

---

whereas those using video tend to be on a tighter budget or tighter time constraints

---

That's me!

---

Heheh that's most of us! But it's still no excuse for flat, boring lighting 😉

As stated lighting will play a key role since your camera will not want to use it's digital gamma to increase the exposure level.

The biggest thing with making digital look like film, as stated, 24p this will create that motion blur sense that film at running at 24fps. The other one which is well very hard to get digitally is that depth of field. You can use software to similate this, and it is OK if it is a static image. But moving images are harder. You can shoot using your Dv cameras longer lens settings (zooming in) this will create that depth of field decent enough to extract the foreground from the background, but you need room in order to use these longer lenses. using a 35mm lens adapter for a DV camera will provide you with the characteristics of the actual prime lenses used on 35mm motion picture camera with an almost same focal length (it won't be exact because of the DV camera lenses depth (small but still present)) But these can be expensive.

It is a matter of playing with the look until you are happy. But for my suggestion would be, if you have DV, shoot it DV, don't try and make it look like film, because it will not look the same as film. Even the camera's that Lucas uses don't have the look of film, and you can tell it is digital when you watch the movie. But look at films Collateral, Miami Vice, these were shot digital and they look like they were. But, if the story is good, and the visals are great, and everyone can hear everything properly people aren't going to look at it and scoff because it doesn't look like film.

Embrace what you can until you can actually use the real thing.

Michael Rogers
McRogson

Thanks a lot for the advice. ?_?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mikeonmic

As stated lighting will play a key role since your camera will not want to use it's digital gamma to increase the exposure level.

The biggest thing with making digital look like film, as stated, 24p this will create that motion blur sense that film at running at 24fps. The other one which is well very hard to get digitally is that depth of field. You can use software to similate this, and it is OK if it is a static image. But moving images are harder. You can shoot using your Dv cameras longer lens settings (zooming in) this will create that depth of field decent enough to extract the foreground from the background, but you need room in order to use these longer lenses. using a 35mm lens adapter for a DV camera will provide you with the characteristics of the actual prime lenses used on 35mm motion picture camera with an almost same focal length (it won't be exact because of the DV camera lenses depth (small but still present)) But these can be expensive.

It is a matter of playing with the look until you are happy. But for my suggestion would be, if you have DV, shoot it DV, don't try and make it look like film, because it will not look the same as film. Even the camera's that Lucas uses don't have the look of film, and you can tell it is digital when you watch the movie. But look at films Collateral, Miami Vice, these were shot digital and they look like they were. But, if the story is good, and the visals are great, and everyone can hear everything properly people aren't going to look at it and scoff because it doesn't look like film.

Embrace what you can until you can actually use the real thing.

Michael Rogers
McRogson

---

Best and most sensible advice Ive seen given on this topic.

And just to reiterate, Lighting can change a shot so much on DV. In terms of TV lighting, its all flat and overhead. Almost generic in its makeup. Film or trying to look like film on DV can work if each individual shot is lit from specific angles and some time put into "grading" your shots in post production.

Beowulf, you mentioned your reading a book on lighting. I'm looking to get a book on lighting, since I just got an amazon gift card, but there's so many, and I would like to know what any of you guys have to recommend, especially if its $25 or under 🙂

"We all have the potential to be great. It is our inability to do so that makes us miserable." C.S.Lewis