Making a home movie look like a real movie?

ben704 · #1 (**permalink**) 10-26-2004, 12:03 PM

Hi guys, I was just after anyone who could share there techniques on how to make a home video look less like a home video without having to go out and by realy expensive equitment. I have read that de-interlacing is a major factor so I tried de intrerlacing in tmpgenc and it just seemed to make the picture all blurry? neway thankx 4 ya help ben704.

Marc Peters · #2 (**permalink**) 10-26-2004, 01:01 PM

The holy grail of many an home-movie maker.

In very very very simpple terms, film stock is
1) shot at 24fps
2) shot on film
3) shot with expensive cameras under expensive lighting normally in studios using a crew of hundreds.

To this end, the simple answer is that no matter how hard you try in post production, DV just ain't gonna look like film unless you buy something like Magic Bullet. There are techniques such as messing around with the standrd filters on your NLE package, but it will never be 'perfect'.

In my humble opinion, I'd concentrate on getting the basics right. If you're 'film' is shot and edited well, it'll look more like film than any effect. At the end of the day, they are just effects and the most important aspect of film making is story telling.

Davewav · #3 (**permalink**) 10-26-2004, 04:05 PM

That is the sad truth - no easy fixes

Has anyone had any luck with color fixing or "Digital grading" would be too fancy a name for it for what we would do, but any tips on a product or a link and a few easy steps would be appreciated and save others a bunch of learning and testing.

For example is there a product out there that can filter like a TV can. My TV at home has settings like "TV" and "Movie" that alter the brightness and color grading of the image in a standard way

Marc Peters · #4 (**permalink**) 10-26-2004, 05:20 PM

I bought and use magic bullet for editors. You can play around with the brightness settings etc (Millsy is a dab hand at that), but Ilike the presets that come with it for an easy no-nonsense fix...

http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/mbforeditors.html

Davewav · #5 (**permalink**) 10-27-2004, 02:26 AM

You have mentioned magic bullet before (and before in this thread) my apologies Marc - I did not think that this was the exact solution I was looking for though.

I will download the demo tonight - at under $300 bucks if it does what I want then it will be a great solution - you should get a commision!

I will find out soon enough, but does the demo version allow you to export without one of those big x's or the words demo across your exports. No biggie either way but I would hope it doesn't

sounds to me that this is what you are looking for too Ben

Alan Mills · #6 (**permalink**) 10-27-2004, 08:29 AM

When you register your copy of Premiere Pro on the Adobe web site you may download a 'freebie'. This freebie is a set of non-editable Magic Bullets to achieve about half a dozen standarda movie looks like the Matrix, Three Kings etc.

Well worth having.

But I always use the Colour Correction filter that came with my RTX100 and do it all in real time

skribe · #7 (**permalink**) 10-27-2004, 10:20 AM

As others have said the best way to get the 'film look' is by using film, but there are a few techniques that I use that can help make it look more film-like when using DV:

1. Shoot 16:9. If your camera allows you to shoot widescreen use it.

2. Use frame mode/progressive scan/non-interlace. They may have different names but essentially it means the camera is capturing a complete frame of video rather than interlacing two separate fields to produce a video frame. ie more film-like.

3. Set your shutter speed to as close to 24fps as possible. 25 is better than 23 btw - not that I expect you will find a camera that does anything below 25fps =).

4. Use manual white balance for EVERY shot. Don't trust the camera.

5. Manual aperture. If your camera has a zebra pattern set it to max and then manually stop the aperture down one or two stops below when the zebra has disappeared. It is better to underexpose in most cases. Even better is to use a good quality lightmeter and set your readings off that.

6. Manual focus. Preferably using a large external monitor. It's easier to determine what is in and out of focus on a large screen than it is on a dinky little viewfinder.

7. Shallow depth of field. Using the upper end of your zoom range is the easiest although for most cases will require a tri/monopod. You can also fool around with the aperture (opening it to reduce the DoF) and then use neutral density filters or lights.

When I'm shooting a 'film' they give me some pretty nifty results. Try them, play around, learn your equipment. You might not be able to do all of them but try to do as many as possible. Leanrning basic photography skills can alos help with composition, framing, and how to use the light to your best advantage.

As others have said, use magic bullet - if you can afford it. You might also like to try cinelerra - available for linux (and other *ix OS IIRC). It has a 'film-look' function that does something similar to magic bullet. I've never used it but I have friends that swear by it. It is available for free download. Check google.

skribe

Pieguy · #8 (**permalink**) 10-27-2004, 10:47 AM

wow! cinerella is just what I have been looking for! I mostly run linux now (about 90% of the time) and now I don't have to stop running my webserver to edit video! thanks

DrGonzo · #9 (**permalink**) 11-05-2004, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by skribe

2. Use frame mode/progressive scan/non-interlace. They may have different names but essentially it means the camera is capturing a complete frame of video rather than interlacing two separate fields to produce a video frame. ie more film-like.
skribe

> If the final medium is supposed to be video for display on a TV (as oposed to transferred to film) it is IMO best to stay in the interlaced mode. For display on PC monitors and LCD and such this might ot be such an important thing but it is also the factor that progressive scan camcorders are still expensive.

Originally Posted by skribe

3. Set your shutter speed to as close to 24fps as possible. 25 is better than 23 btw - not that I expect you will find a camera that does anything below 25fps =).
skribe

The film "look" resulting from using 24fps is actually a more "jerky" image and again i'd recommend it only if it is for transfer to real film.

Originally Posted by skribe

7. Shallow depth of field. Using the upper end of your zoom range is the easiest although for most cases will require a tri/monopod. You can also fool around with the aperture (opening it to reduce the DoF) and then use neutral density filters or lights.
skribe

It can be very tricky to achieve a really small DoF on a small CCD camcorder. On more expensive broadcast cameras you'll usually find larger CCD's (an i am not talking about pixels here.. physical size) but then the lenses needs to be larger and the price goes up, up and up...

DrGonzo