Someone please explain to me these video differences.

[Rais]

Okay, so I'm an artist, and recently have tried to make music videos, but they simply do not look right. The only way I can describe it is it looks almost too "real". The movements I make look like it was recorded on a $5 home video camera. It doesn't look like a music video or a film, it looks like real life, it's so unappealing to look at. The only thing that I can compare this look to is "motion enhancement" settings on HD TVS. So, what is making the camera do this? Is there a way to fix it and make it look like an actual film? I've tried and tried to show 2 guys who are in school for film editing and they have NO idea what im talking about when it's just unbelievably obvious to me. If you don't know what I'm talking about, here's 2 examples in the form of music videos.

Here's one that looks great, looks like a quality film, really gives a great music video vibe.

http://youtu.be/ZpFxDDx1xi4

And here's one that looks god awful and EXACTLY like the shots from our camera. It looks like someone filmed it on a flip video cam corder even though this guy is a critically acclaimed hip hop artist who's been around forever!

http://youtu.be/CKA0kgsScb8

[johns0]

Its just depends on the type of camera and lense and filters involved,you want the Hollywood look which requires special filming where as the real life look is unfiltered and not using anything special.

There's older threads that discuss this in more detail that you can search for.

[manono]

The one you like was shot on film. The one you don't like was shot on video and poorly deinterlaced and definitely has a very 'video' look about it. If you're trying to achieve the film look, one way is shoot at 23.976fps. And as johns0 says, maybe get a better camera.

And you say the film school guys don't know how to tell film from video?

[jagabo]

The "film look" has more to do with lighting, framing, and depth of field. FPS is secondary but a factor.

[Rais]

The one you like was shot on film. The one you don't like was shot on video and poorly deinterlaced and definitely has a very 'video' look about it. If you're trying to achieve the film look, one way is shoot at 23.976fps. And as johns0 says, maybe get a better camera.

And you say the film school guys don't know how to tell film from video?

As much as I've tried to describe the different look and countless examples, they have no idea. And this is going to be a dumb
Question as I know nothing in this field, but what do you mean it was shot, "On film"? Can you link me to the type of camera you're talking about? And the several ones we've worked with I believe are all video. One is a Panasonic and the other is a go pro, can't remember the brand of the other.

[poisondeathray]

The one you like was likely shot on a DLSR - very popular for music video productions because of ergonomics, shallow depth of field at a relatively low price . e.g. Canon 5dMkII, Canon 7D

It's definitely not film (as in celluloid) - because there are notable rolling shutter artifacts

It looks like someone filmed it on a flip video cam corder even though this guy is a critically acclaimed hip hop artist who's been around forever!

Haha - just because someone is a critically acclaimed hip hop artist, doesn't mean he shoots or produces his own videos

[poisondeathray]

http://www.limitemagazine.com/2009/11/creative-control-tv/

What type of Camera so they normally use and editting software do they use?

They use canon 5D Mk II

Pretty good guess eh ?

(BTW - It's not the camera, it 's how they use the camera , how they plan and frame the shots, how they do set lighting. )

[Rais]

The one you like was likely shot on a DLSR - very popular for music video productions because of ergonomics, shallow depth of field at a relatively low price . e.g. Canon 5dMkII, Canon 7D

It's definitely not film (as in celluloid) - because there are notable rolling shutter artifacts

It looks like someone filmed it on a flip video cam corder even though this guy is a critically acclaimed hip hop artist who's been around forever!

Haha - just because someone is a critically acclaimed hip hop artist, doesn't mean he shoots or produces his own videos

$1-$2,000 dollars is relatively low price? Guess it's time for me to hire someone instead haha. Will filming in 24 fps like the other guy said give it a more cinematic feel to it? Also thanks everyone for answering, this question has been bugging me for so long and I couldn't find anything on google that explained it.

And o about the Murs comment, I figured since he's been around so long and had so many videos that he would not approve of such a bad video or hire someone to film it like that in the first place!

[poisondeathray]

The one you like was likely shot on a DLSR - very popular for music video productions because of ergonomics, shallow depth of field at a relatively low price . e.g. Canon 5dMkII, Canon 7D

It's definitely not film (as in celluloid) - because there are notable rolling shutter artifacts

It looks like someone filmed it on a flip video cam corder even though this guy is a critically acclaimed hip hop artist who's been around forever!

Haha - just because someone is a critically acclaimed hip hop artist, doesn't mean he shoots or produces his own videos

$1-$2,000 dollars is relatively low price? Guess it's time for me to hire someone instead haha. Will filming in 24 fps like the other guy said give it a more cinematic feel to it? Also thanks everyone for answering, this question has been bugging me for so long and I couldn't find anything on google that explained it.

The "look" is much more than just the FPS. Sure it will help, but like jagabo said above, it contributes - but framing the shots, shallow depth of field , lighting, is more important . Even post production work, grading can make it look entirely different ; either make or break your shots

In terms of music video productions, that is dirt cheap . Even on the "indie" scene . By the time you add the accessories, lenses, stabilization rigs, it's easily 4-5x that price . Often people rent gear or hire a production company to do their videos, because those companies have the experience and "know how" . Let the musical artists do their thing, and let cinematographers do their thing.

And o about the Murs comment, I figured since he's been around so long and had so many videos that he would not approve of such a bad video or hire someone to film it like that in the first place!

I'm not familar with his work, but the video does look terrible IMO . But maybe that's the "look" he was going for ? Not everything has to be "cinematic" . Often an artist will have a "vision" or some specific things s/he wants done for that video

[manono]

It's definitely not film (as in celluloid) - because there are notable rolling shutter artifacts

Oh, it wasn't shot on film? I was going by the framerate and the 'look' of it. Thanks for the correction. I have no idea what a 'rolling shutter artifact' is, but that's OK. I don't want to clutter my brain with it as I do none of this kind of work.

[pandy]

The "film look" has more to do with lighting, framing, and depth of field. FPS is secondary but a factor.

I agree, DoF is most important, remain things can be simulated by simple postprocessing but recreate artificial DoF can be very tricky part - simple mask with blur give usually very cheap impression.

Film can be slightly overexposed, tinted (shifted color tone or simulated b/w film), FPS can be recreated by even crude framerate conversion, grain can be added.

[jagabo]

I have no idea what a 'rolling shutter artifact' is

Unlike film cameras, the sensors in most digital cameras do not sample the entire frame at once. They sample scan line by scan line, so each scan line comes from a different point in time. If there is a lot of motion the picture is distorted. With horizontal movement you'll see vertical lines become diagonal. With vertical motion the picture will shrink or stretch vertically. This is often called a "jello" distortion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt0u9hsPuZY

[fvisagie]

there are notable rolling shutter artifacts

Well spotted! I often work with CMOS sensor footage that's rather messy in many respects, but missed the rolling shutter here until you mentioned it. Apart from the fact that my eye doesn't have all that much experience, it's amazing what can be hidden quite effectively if the rest is nicely and cleanly dressed up.

Cheers,
Francois

[Rais]

Thank you everyone for clearing this up and educating me a bit about video. Makes alot more sense now and hopefully we can make a better music video this time. In the future I'm definitely going to by my own camera and accessories because it seems to me like neither of these guys care about their trade at all. I'm still kind of blown away by the "indie" priced cameras though! You can get the "industry standard" microphone chain for less than $10,000, and some top audio engineers think that a $200 mic at times can be better then $3,000 one! I can't believe I thought my field was ridiculously expensive haha.

[poisondeathray]

The prices for video gear have dropped exponentially. Even a few years ago it would have costed many times that amount to shoot a SD video only, forget HD. The "cost of entry" used to be prohibitive for "Indy" and "enthusiasts", now just about everybody can make a video and have great, inexpensive exposure on sites like youtube, vimeo

"Affordable" 4K cameras are coming out , and within the next few years will be common place even in consumer space . Blackmagic introduced a 4K , global shutter camera for $4K at NAB recently - that's insane crazy - it would have costed many times that amount shooting something like Red Epic (and it has a rolling shutter as well) even a few months ago

You can use less expensive models . e.g. A T3i or GH2/3 (not a true DSLR, mirrorless) can make similar images and cost significantly than a 7D or 5DMK2 . The benefit is they "double" as a good quality stills camera as well

These DSLR's like the 7D , 5D have several other issues however. A long list besides quality issues. But for image quality specifically, besides rolling shutter, the "achilles heel" is aliasing and moire artifacts. You can work around those issues, but you need lots of experience and it's a pain.

The only way to get better is start shooting and examining your footage, get constant feedback, gradually improving your technique and getting to know your equipment and how it performs under certain conditions