Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: DV & General film question

This is topic DV & General film question in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002130

Posted by Nate Lehrke (Member # 1460) on 06-08-2003, 12:31 AM:

Why is a movie shot on Digital Video so grainy?
What makes it grainy?
A movie shot totally on DV wont look as good as one on film, right?

Any one able to give me a ‘crash course’ on the differences between film & DV& the advantages of each. Is there any thing besides the cost issue that makes DV better? How much does a lab charge for processing of Film from a normal ‘movie making’ camera?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-08-2003, 12:55 AM:

Well you've come to the right place, but there is not a single answer. By "DV" one must assume you mean the DV consumer format. DV can also be used liberally to stand for any video that is digital. Like George Lucas' recent Star Wars movie.

But DV has only 720x480 lines of resolution. Film is not measured by lines of resolution, but it approximates about 4,000 lines of resolution for your average 35mm picture frame. Blow a 720x480 image up to movie screen size and you begin to get nauseous. When converting DV to film it seems to get even worse and soon you will be mopping lots of vomit from the floor since the image quality is so bad. It's kind of like taking the tiny graphical icons used in this forum like:

[Smile]

and then blowing it up to:

It gets so big that it begins to look like nothing. It needs more resolution... like:

See the difference more resolution makes?

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-08-2003, 12:55 AM:

Before we go any further, let's start with the $64,000.00 question:

What's going to happen to your movie? Will it make it to theatres?

If so, then it is only a question of your budget. If you can afford film, go with film.

If you don't have a budget -- and if you don't have Hollywood connections -- then don't give film another thought.

I think 9 times out of 10 this is a vanity issue.

Benefits of DV --

Low cost. You already know that the cameras and tape are far less costly than film equipment and media. But consider also that with DV you won't need a whole separate sound kit. Video seems to be a great deal more sensitive to light. My experience has been that small lights (cheaper and more portable) go a long, long way.

Speaking of portability, DV camera equipment can be picked up and carried almost anywhere. If you have a steady hand, you won't need a Steadicam rig...but if you wanted one, the DV model is available...and, of course, cheaper than the film version.

Good quality image and sound -- I don't know where you saw this grainy DV but chances are that it was a single-chip camera or a busted camera or else the footage was manipulated to give it a "film" look. Good DV is very clear.

DV footage is easily transferred to computers for editing.

What you see is what you get -- no nightmares about whether you really got the shot.

There is only one real benefit to going with film: If your movie is good and a studio is interested in doing a "negative pickup" the DV factor may queer your pitch. Having said that, I am happier now after having produced a feature film on DV than I was when I was trying to figure out how the hell I was going to finance a film-originated project. DV was a no-brainer.

Your DV production of a mediocre script can carry you further than a great script that you're waiting to get funded. Everyone in Southern California seems to be a writer these days.

Make the movie.

Posted by Matthew Peters (Member # 1495) on 06-08-2003, 11:31 PM:

The grain you mentioned might be the automatic “gain” feature on the camera. It usually kits in when you are shooting in a poorly lit area. The gain brightens up the image but in return it destroys the quality of image and results in the “grainy picture”. The same camera can produce crystal clear images (to the limitations of DV) during daytime, then look inferior at night. Whenever I use a camera I like to manually set the gain to 0db. As Joe points out, resolution limitations reduce the clarity of the image and blowing it up gives it that “blocky” look, when the gain is adjusted to high to compensate for lighting conditions and the video is then enlarged to fit a nice big screen, the effects are even more horrific.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 06-09-2003, 05:03 PM:

Isn't that movie "28 Days Later" shot entirely on DV? The trailers look like rolling-stock ads during some scenes, especially when it's an areal shot of the street with lots of detail on the ground. Each bit of detail seems to have a colored "halo" around it as if the camera can't quite make it out. Side note: Kick-ass movie, though. If you have any pull with your bookings, GET IT! [Big Grin]

So I guess if you got a good story, it would be OK to sacrifice a little quality for the increased chance of getting it seen.

=TMP=

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-12-2003, 09:16 AM:

Some views on digital capture:

Kodak R&D Richard Sehlin

Roger Morton Research

Cinematographers' Test

Kodak Evaluation of HD Resolution

And in the May 2003 SMPTE Journal: "An Introduction to Aliasing and Sharpening in Digital Motion Picture Systems" By Roger R. A. Morton, Michelle A. Maurer, and Christopher L. DuMont

Link for SMPTE members with password:

On-Line SMPTE Journal