Movie 'shinyness'?

Discussion in 'Digital Video' started by J@ffa, Jun 9, 2007.

  1. J@ffa macrumors 6502a

    J@ffa

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2002
    Location:
    Behind you!
    #1
    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?
     
  2. mikes63737 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
  3. -DH macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Location:
    Nashville Tennessee
    #3

    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
     
  4. Peel macrumors 6502a

    Peel

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Location:
    Seattle
    #4
    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.
     
  5. ppc_michael Guest

    ppc_michael

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #5
    Not to mention film has a much higher contrast ratio. Standard definition video is quite flat indeed.
     
  6. bigbossbmb macrumors 68000

    bigbossbmb

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Location:
    Pasadena/Hollywood
    #6
    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.
     
  7. Brize macrumors 6502a

    Brize

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Location:
    Europe
  8. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #9
    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'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
     
  9. sushi Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    キャンプスワ&#
    #10
    Nice analogy. :)

    I think -- the biggest difference being talent, skill and knowledge -- holds true with many fields.
     
  10. bigbossbmb macrumors 68000

    bigbossbmb

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Location:
    Pasadena/Hollywood
    #11
    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.
     
  11. faustfire macrumors 6502a

    faustfire

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    California
    #12
    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."
     

Share This Page