Movie 'shinyness'?

[J@ffa]

Hi all. I have a quick question; you know how, when you watch home-produced videos, they always seem a bit flat and whatnot, but TV and film always has a kind of sheen on the picture? Is this something that can be reproduced in postproduction, or just a result of having super expensive cameras and professional lighting?

 

[mikes63737]

Pro cameras are a big part of it.

 

[-DH]

Hi all. I have a quick question; you know how, when you watch home-produced videos, they always seem a bit flat and whatnot, but TV and film always has a kind of sheen on the picture? Is this something that can be reproduced in postproduction, or just a result of having super expensive cameras and professional lighting?

I'd say 80% of it is lighting and camera work (depth of field, angles, shading, etc), 10% is from color grading in post and 10% camera/lens quality.

-DH

 

[Peel]

I'd say 80% of it is lighting and camera work (depth of field, angles, shading, etc), 10% is from color grading in post and 10% camera/lens quality.

-DH

Since upgrading to FCS2 2 weeks ago I've been doing alot of work in Color. Just using the Auto-correct feature does a lot to increase the contrast in the video and give it added depth and punch. It's the same idea as adjusting the levels on a photo in Photoshop.

 

[ppc_michael]

Not to mention film has a much higher contrast ratio. Standard definition video is quite flat indeed.

 

[bigbossbmb]

Not to mention film has a much higher contrast ratio. Standard definition video is quite flat indeed.

actually, it is the other way around... Small camcorder's low dynamic range makes the picture very contrasty, while film captures things much more evenly.

 

[ppc_michael]

Er... yeah.

 

[Brize]

Don't filters have a lot to do with this?

 

[LethalWolfe]

The biggest difference is talent, skill, and knowledge. Give Picasso a paint-by-numbers set from Wal-Mart and he'll still make something brilliant. Give me the best paint money can buy and I'll still do no better than a drunk monkey.

Next is the quality of the production gear. It's a no brainer that $500k worth of camera and lighting gear is going to produce a better image than a $700 handy-cam.

Last, but not least, is the post gear. As computers have gotten more powerful and visual effects more realistic post is playing a bigger part than ever in how the finished film looks. Movies in the style of "300" or "Sin City" have only become possible recently, and w/the rise of digital color grading it's becoming more common to shoot for "focus, framing, and exposure" and create the entire look in post.

actually, it is the other way around... Small camcorder's low dynamic range makes the picture very contrasty, while film captures things much more evenly.

Actually it's the other way around. You can get brighter whites and darker blacks in a shot (w/o the image going to crap) on film than you can video.


Lethal

 

[sushi]

The biggest difference is talent, skill, and knowledge. Give Picasso a paint-by-numbers set from Wal-Mart and he'll still make something brilliant. Give me the best paint money can buy and I'll still do no better than a drunk monkey.

Nice analogy.

I think -- the biggest difference being talent, skill and knowledge -- holds true with many fields.

 

[bigbossbmb]

Actually it's the other way around. You can get brighter whites and darker blacks in a shot (w/o the image going to crap) on film than you can video.

Lethal

yes, the range is much wider... but there is much more contrast with a one stop difference in light using a handycam, than one stop on film.

 

[faustfire]

IMO the thing that is most noticeable about video to the average person is the lack of shallow depth of field. I think this is what people perceive as "flatness."