-
why does video look harsh?
-
OK, back to topic.
Resolution has nothing to do with why video does or does not look harsh.
However, you’ve raised a point that I would like to hear you expound upon, suggesting that 720p is less sharp or more aesthetically pleasing than 1080p or i when viewed on a display of corresponding size, when the source is the same.The answer as to why film looks less harsh is a discussion of gamma, contrast, framerate, and the method in which it is acquired, depending on the DP’s taste. It’s not an issue of resolution.
I’d still like to better understand your theory of 720p vs 1080 or 480 for that matter.
-
[Raymond Motion Pictures] “Sure it is. The lower resolution of 720p appeals to the perception that one is watching a film that has been converted to video and not an HD video.”
The truth of the matter is that 35mm film has way more resolution that HDV or HD Video for that matter. The harshness described is not a function of resolution. If it were, movies shoot on film would look very poor indeed since film has way more resolution than our HD Cams. It is well documented that you can soften the look of HDV cams by lowering the detail setting and other internal camera settings. But, your lighting is going to have a huge effect on how hard or soft your end picture will look. At the network where I work, we can take our HD Studio cams and just by adjusting our lighting make the subject look hard and theatrical or soft and pleasing. It has been our experience that lighting the the single biggest factor affecting the way our picture looks.
I think we can all agree that a soft filter on the lens can make things look softer. But in my opinion ,resolution in and of itself does not give you that film look.Regards, Rick.
-
[Rick Mac] “The truth of the matter is that 35mm film has way more resolution that HDV or HD Video for that matter. The harshness described is not a function of resolution. If it were, movies shoot on film would look very poor indeed since film has way more resolution than our HD Cams. It is well documented that you can soften the look of HDV cams by lowering the detail setting and other internal camera settings. But, your lighting is going to have a huge effect on how hard or soft your end picture will look. At the network where I work, we can take our HD Studio cams and just by adjusting our lighting make the subject look hard and theatrical or soft and pleasing. It has been our experience that lighting the the single biggest factor affecting the way our picture looks.
I think we can all agree that a soft filter on the lens can make things look softer. But in my opinion ,resolution in and of itself does not give you that film look.”Of course, a lot of things come into play in getting the look. For me the ‘look’ to replicate is the projected film on the big screen which is slightly softened by the scaling. An outdoor shot is an outdoor shot – lighting is not the factor in those scenes – the resolution and scaling is.
-
[DSE/Spot] “Resolution has nothing to do with why video does or does not look harsh.
However, you’ve raised a point that I would like to hear you expound upon, suggesting that 720p is less sharp or more aesthetically pleasing than 1080p or i when viewed on a display of corresponding size, when the source is the same.”It’s about scaling.
When 480 is scaled up to 1080 is the picture as crisp as native 1080?
This discussion is not about wowing people at a trade show. The games Canon and Sony play with their prosumer HDV cameras – enhancing edges and toying with contrast in processing the image is great for a trade show – win the sharpeness battle – but worthless and counter-productive for replicating the ‘film to video’ look.
The VariCam image looks more organic and less electronic to most people than CineAlta – 720 scaled up to 1080 looks great.
-
[Raymond Motion Pictures] “An outdoor shot is an outdoor shot – lighting is not the factor in those scenes – the resolution and scaling is.”
Outside film guys use HMI Lights, fill lights, diffusers, and reflectors. So lighting techniques still comes into play outside.
It still boils to down to technique. Lighting technique, camera technique, and post technique. That is how the big boys get the look of film using video cams.
They do not lower the resolution of their cameras. In fact they are all trying to get up to 2k and higher resolution, hince the big interest in the Red 2K Camera at all the shows.Regards, Rick.
-
Alert to Hollywood; quit shooting with the highest resolutions possible. RED, Genesis, SI, Viper….close your doors; Varicam is superior to all of you.
Apparently only Varicam creates a cinelook that folks like.
George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Jon Carpenter, Steven Soderberg, Dean Devlin, Bob Redford, James Cameron…are you all listening?
By far, far…Cinealta has been matched to more film than Varicam or any other format.
Either way, it’s interesting how a subject of why video looks harsh compared to film has become a Panasonic discussion.
Varicam owns most of the commercial spot production market, that’s one I’ll give you, but that’s about where it overall ends.
It’s absurd to bring Varicam and HDV into a parity discussion, and then attempt to compare either of those to SR for example. We might as well drag AVCHD and Viper dual-stream into the discussion too, since we’ve gotten ridiculous. -
[DSE/Spot] “Varicam owns most of the commercial spot production market, that’s one I’ll give you, but that’s about where it overall ends.”
Oh, stop being such a shill for Sony. I made it clear that I was talking about the film to video ‘look’!
Not shooting video with the intention of going to film!
-
[Rick Mac] “That is how the big boys get the look of film using video cams.
They do not lower the resolution of their cameras. In fact they are all trying to get up to 2k and higher resolution, hince the big interest in the Red 2K Camera at all the shows.”What’s that got to do with the ‘film to video’ LOOK? Which is what 99 percent of shooters are looking for – they are not going to make a film print – they are going to deliver to disk in SD and HD.
You’re all talking about ‘video to film’. Get a 4k camera for that.
-
I’d love to be a shill for Sony Broadcast, truth is, we own more non-Sony cameras than we own Sony cameras.
And we buy them just like you do. We probably break more in a year than most folks own in a lifetime. -
[Raymond Motion Pictures] “You’re all talking about ‘video to film’. Get a 4k camera for that.”
Your words not mine. I am talking about Video. Many directors are shooting HD and delivering to the networks and other outlets in HD Video. They achieve that film look in high resolution HD Video using some of the same techniques used when shooting film. In many cases they are shooting the highest video resolution possible and achieveing pictures that are very pleasant and not harsh. They got there not by lowering their resolution but with technique. The harshness that the poster is complaining about has nothing to do with resolution, but has much to do with compression/codec artifacts, lower quality lenses, and frankly poor technique. If you have good lighting chops and a good understanding of your camera and the post process you can make all of that glorious high resolution HDV video look very sweet indeed. Without resorting to droping your resolution.
Your line of thinking that resolution is somehow the culprit of harsh looking pictures is just flawed to the core.
I’ll give you the final thought here since this thread has run it’s course.
Regards, Rick.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up