Is there a way to make video look more like film?

[Xoanon]

The only method Ive tried which helps create a LITTLE bit of an illusion is to deinterlace the footage, but I know this is not recommended.

I only ask because Im a filmmaker and wish to make them look more like film for that added feeling of realism. I know shows like THE OFFICE shoot on video and then treat the video to look like film, so I just wondered if there was a simple way to do it (cos I obviously dont have the same equipment as the BBC lol )

Thanks in advance.

[Steve Stepoway]

Check out what Adam Wilt has to say. Great website for all kinds of things involving digital video.

[hexxisoft]

what i do is take the video into Vegas 5, add an S shaped color curve, do a little bit of color correction, add a little bit of grain (zenote plugins), and I shoot in 16x9 so as to have it widescreen (people sometimes equate letter boxes to film.) After all of that, I render it as 24P DV, then convert to mpeg2 with my favorite mpeg encoder, and burn. It's still noticably video, as it doesn't have the huge depth of field that film does, but it's sometimes convincing.

[Xoanon]

I'll check that site out Steve, thank you.

As for Vegas 5, I dont have it unfortunately Thanks anyway!

[kickbxn5]

This is what works for me.

If you have Adobe Premeiere (pro), get the Magic Bullet plugin (or Big FilmFX). These plugins seem to work a little better than Cinelook. After you render your timeline, export it as a filmstrip in photoshop. Reimport it into Premiere and you will be amazed at the results!

[GeorgeW]

what i do is take the video into Vegas 5, add an S shaped color curve, do a little bit of color correction, add a little bit of grain (zenote plugins), and I shoot in 16x9 so as to have it widescreen (people sometimes equate letter boxes to film.) After all of that, I render it as 24P DV, then convert to mpeg2 with my favorite mpeg encoder, and burn. It's still noticably video, as it doesn't have the huge depth of field that film does, but it's sometimes convincing.

Hi,

I think I'm with you up to the 24P DV (do you use the 2-3, or the 2-3-3-2 template?).

What are the settings in your mpeg encoder? When I bring it into Mainconcept's Mpeg encoder, it says it is 29.97fps, and I cannot select the 23.xx setting in the advanced video tab.

Thanks for any insight...

[Xoanon]

This is what works for me.

If you have Adobe Premeiere (pro), get the Magic Bullet plugin (or Big FilmFX). These plugins seem to work a little better than Cinelook. After you render your timeline, export it as a filmstrip in photoshop. Reimport it into Premiere and you will be amazed at the results!

I have Adobe Premiere Pro 1.5. Ive just been looking at Magic Bullet but theres no way I can afford that right now! Is there anything similar I can use? (I also dont have Photoshop)

[GeorgeW]

These guys offer software, and a guide/book on this topic...
http://www.dvfilm.com/index.htm

I've found the Magic Bullet plugin (for Vegas) takes FOREVER to render (to the point where I really can't use it). I don't know if it works any faster as a plugin for other applications...

[dphirschler]

Try some of these AviSyhtn functions:

v=AVIsource("test.avi").converttoYUY2 #30fps interlaced 720x480


#return filmlook1(v)
#return filmlook2(v)
return filmlook3(v)
#return filmlook4(v)
#return filmlook5(v)


# removes every third frame
function filmlook1(v)
{
	vw=width(v)
	vh=height(v)

	v=assumeTFF(v)
	v=bob(v)
	v=selectevery(v,4, 0,1,2)
	v=assumefieldbased(v)
	v=weave(v)
	v=v.bicubicresize(vw,vh)

	return v.assumefps(23.976)
}

# blends third and fourth frames
function filmlook2(v)
{
	vw=width(v)
	vh=height(v)

	v=assumeTFF(v)
	v=bob(v)
	v0=selectevery(v,4, 0)
	v1=selectevery(v,4, 1)
	v2=selectevery(v,4, 2)
	v3=selectevery(v,4, 3)

	v23=overlay(v2,v3, mode="blend", opacity=0.5)
	v=interleave(v0,v1,v23)
	v=assumefieldbased(v)
	v=weave(v)
	v=v.bicubicresize(vw,vh)

	return v.assumefps(23.976)
}

# blends groups of four frames with different weights.
function filmlook3(v)
{
	vw=width(v)
	vh=height(v)

	v=assumeTFF(v)
	v=bob(v)
	v0=selectevery(v,4, 0)
	v1=selectevery(v,4, 1)
	v2=selectevery(v,4, 2)
	v3=selectevery(v,4, 3)

	v01=overlay(v0,v1, mode="blend", opacity=0.25)
	v12=overlay(v1,v2, mode="blend", opacity=0.50)
	v23=overlay(v2,v3, mode="blend", opacity=0.75)
	v=interleave(v01,v12,v23)
	v=assumefieldbased(v)
	v=weave(v)
	v=v.bicubicresize(vw,vh)

	return v.assumefps(23.976)
}

# blends groups of five frames with different weights.
function filmlook4(v)
{
	vw=width(v)
	vh=height(v)

	v=assumeTFF(v)
	v=bob(v)
	v0=selectevery(v,5, 0)
	v1=selectevery(v,5, 1)
	v2=selectevery(v,5, 2)
	v3=selectevery(v,5, 3)
	v4=selectevery(v,5, 4)

	v01=overlay(v0,v1, mode="blend", opacity=0.200)
	v12=overlay(v1,v2, mode="blend", opacity=0.400)
	v23=overlay(v2,v3, mode="blend", opacity=0.600)
	v34=overlay(v3,v4, mode="blend", opacity=0.800)

	v=interleave(v01,v12,v23,v34)
	v=assumefieldbased(v)
	v=weave(v)
	v=v.bicubicresize(vw,vh)

	return v.assumefps(23.976)
}

# blends frames if weight is 50%, otherwise no blend.  Groups of four.
function filmlook5(v)
{
	vw=width(v)
	vh=height(v)

	v=assumeTFF(v)
	v=bob(v)
	v0=selectevery(v,4, 0)
	v1=selectevery(v,4, 1)
	v2=selectevery(v,4, 2)
	v3=selectevery(v,4, 3)

	v01=overlay(v0,v1, mode="blend", opacity=0.00)
	v12=overlay(v1,v2, mode="blend", opacity=0.50)
	v23=overlay(v2,v3, mode="blend", opacity=1.00)
	v=interleave(v01,v12,v23)
	v=assumefieldbased(v)
	v=weave(v)
	v=v.bicubicresize(vw,vh)

	return v.assumefps(23.976)
}

Darryl

[Cornucopia]

If you want to skip paying for 3rdparty plugins and do it manually, these are the things to think about...

1. Film has GRAIN--can be simulated with Noise.
2. Film has greater latitude--can be simulated by tweaking the contrast (also by compensatory lighting while shooting).
3. Film has somewhat logarthmic sensitivity--can be simulated by tweaking contrast, brightness, gamma, etc...and camera gain, etc.
4. Film has different color bias (daylight/indoor stock) than video--can be simulated by color correction curves, tweaking/cheating while balance, etc.
5. Film is progressive--can be achieved with 24 or 30fps progressive cam, or simulated by good de-interlacing.
6. Film is usually shown telecined, has motion judder--can be simulated by applying Telecine (3:2:3:2) to progressive video.
7. Film runs at 24fps--can be achieved with 24fps progressive cam, or simulated by changing framerate w/ VirtualDub, etc. (5, 6, and 7 often work together and can be adjusted together)
8. Film stuff is oversampled compared to video--can be simulated by resizing video to 4x, apply blur, USM, and resize back down to 1x.
9. Film is shot with these in mind--can be achieved by shooting like a filmmaker, not videographer. (Slow pans, rack focusing, less zooms, more dollying, more tripod/steadicam less handheld, etc)

Scott

[Xoanon]

Would converting from 25fps (Im using PAL) to 24fps and then back to 25fps work? I saw that somewhere.

[Wile_E]

I only ask because Im a filmmaker and wish to make them look more like film for that added feeling of realism.

I'm curious why you think film has more realism than video? I've always hated the flickering and slow framerate of film. 24fps is very old technology and slow framerate to produce natural looking realism, as your eyes see everyday. I suppose filmmakers are just used to the "look of film", and don't want to change to higher speed framerate? Studios and movie theatres are too cheap to change to a different format and buy new equipment?

I very rarely go to the theatre, because I can't stand the flicker and slow framerate. In fast action films, whenever the camera pans left/right, it looks jerky. Please don't say film at 24fps looks "real life", like the Human eye sees it everyday. If you want real, look at Maxivision's 48fps technology. This increased framerate is really beneficial. Also, with this technology, projectors can be retro-fitted to use both 24fps and 48fps films.

http://www.maxivision48.com/

So why do filmmakers and the whole film industry/theatres, insist on staying with such old outdated formats?

[Cornucopia]

I really wish they'd go 72fps progressive! Totally fluid and flickerless, IMO.

When you say "Cheap", you do realize that you're talking about Multiple Millions $$$$ that some of these companies have invested? It's not trivial. And unfortunately, most people wouldn't care that much to make a difference. Quite similar to the way many people think higher sample rate audio isn't noticeable enough. (Actually identical, since they're both sampling in time). It's like quality control going from 95% to 99.9%...

re:24/25fps...

Most 24-->25fps conversion do so by simply splitting progressive into interlaced (2:2), and by speed the frames up.
Also, most 25fps-->24fps conversion do so by reversing the previous effect (weave combine & slowdown).
Applying both of these processes to you footage would give you back what you originally started with and would be a colossal waste of time.

Scott

[Xoanon]

I figured, Scott.

As for filmmakers liking "old formats", well, its cos we're sentimentalists

[guns1inger]

Magic Bullet is interesting. A cut down version (basic a set of preset configs and the renderer) came with Vegas 5. It is capable of some stunning changes, and can do things that no amount of standard filter combinations can match (a statement that I'm sure some will challenge, but I dare them to try). It has one very large drawback. It is the slowest application I have ever used. I know my machine is no longer the fastest on the block (AMD XP1800+, 768MB DDR etc), but MB took over 11 hours to process just over 2 minutes of PAL DV. The results were great, but I wouldn't use it on anything longer. And it doesn't network render (or at least, it didn't then)

[Abond]

There was quite a long thread (12 pages!) at doom9 with almost the same title. Here
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=cd661fce35faf0c0a5367be754dbf566&threadid=8779...0&pagenumber=1

[Xoanon]

...took over 11 hours to process just over 2 minutes of PAL DV

My God! Lol, jeez thats slow!

[takeshi]

[Weird, for some reason it left my old post in place after I edited it and re-submitted it]

[takeshi]

I'm curious why you think film has more realism than video? I've always hated the flickering and slow framerate of film. 24fps is very old technology and slow framerate to produce natural looking realism, as your eyes see everyday.

I think quite a lot of people are taken by the increased contrast ratio and the color curve of film. Most people really don't seem to notice or care much about frame rate (it's really the geeks that are nuts about frame rates and mainly because of 3D gaming). Film isn't the most realistic medium to begin with but it has a look that many people definitely prefer. That step away from totally "realistic" is what so many DV filmmakers are seeking.

I doubt that anyone really cares that film is "old technology" aside from the hassles of dealing with film stock itself and the dirt and deterioration issues. The theaters will definitely upgrade to digital projection and distribution when it is cost effective and financially makes sense to do so. There is a massive infrastructure in place from the studios to the labs to the theaters and it's a bit more complicated than theaters being "too cheap" (though that adds to the problem).

In the end, there are no good, quick, easy and cheap (do some research on the golden triangle) way to make DV look like film. There are many things that make films look like films and DV and other types of video look like video. They've mostly been covered in this thread but it's really too much to cover like this. You'll need to read up on lighting, post-production techniques, camera work, and so on. It's also very important to not forget about audio. Watch any late night TV programming and poor audio is the easiest way to spot the cheaper locally-produced TV ads that air. If you want to produce something that has the look and feel of a bigger, professional film production, then don't leave audio as an afterthought.

What I seriously suggest NOT doing is adding noise unless you're looking to replicate the (cheesy and steretypical) look of trashed film from the early 1900's. Good luck! DV is DV and film is film. You can make DV look really good, but it takes a good knowledge about the limits and capabilities of the format. The best work that I have seen done with DV to make it look more film like involved the work of some very experienced directors of photography and lighting directors. I'd say learning more about lighting is your best first step.

[DaveS]

...took over 11 hours to process just over 2 minutes of PAL DV

My God! Lol, jeez thats slow!

on a p4 2.4ghz, I find I can process 2 or so hours of avi with magic bullet with no other effects / filters in 72 hours of straight processing ... it takes a ton of time but does look nice to me

[vhelp]

I too, have dabled here and there in this area of "that film look", and
so far, I haven't found anything "holly'grail'ish" to that look - yet

But, it is definately do'able, (in a rough estimate) with freeware, such
as AVIsynth scripts. I never used Magic Bullet, (to my knowledge, but
then again, I'm always trying new things, and who knows if I did actaully
try it. I mostly tend to forget (on purpose) those things I've tried,
when in the end, they failed)

I have managed to conjure up a conversion routine that worked "fair" to
my eyes. Taking 29.970 fps and converting it to 23.976fps, and with a
3:2 pattern in the end. But, it did not proove 100% smooth. But, very
close. At the moment, I can't seem to find the script I developed for
this home brew film'ish techinque. Somehoe, I seem to have missplaced it
And, all this, from my DV cams. I know I wrote about it somewhere's (brifely)
on this forum, if I recall, and using my TRV22, but I also used this script
on my 820U CAMcorder, (because I found that it could shoot video in
progressive mode, and with zero interlace (through firewire)) with very
good results.

But, you don't need to invest $$$ in software, when there is freeware
floating around, and all it takes is:

( TIME - SQRT(YOUR EFFORT / YOUR DESIRE) ) = WISDOM / KNOWLEDGE

You can do this in AVIsynth, just as I have done (above) and I can tell
you, I am no script guru. Last I recall, the script I wrote was only about
10 lines of code

-vhelp 3241

[Xoanon]

Do explain more, Im interested. Im authoring for DVD, is that a problem?

[hrlslcbr]

If you want to transform a 29.97fps video to a 23.976fps video without stuttering; I've found a way to do it in AviSynth (not the best way, but it works)

v=avisource("your clip here") # must be a 29.97fps video
v=assumefps(v, 30)
v=bob(v) # or your favourite deinterlace filter.
v=changefps(v, 720)
v=selectevery(v, 24, 1)
v=assumefps(v, 24)
return v.assumefps(23.976)

This gives you a 23.976p video from a 29.97i one.

The only problem is that the audio needs to be synchronised to the new video (the lenght changes a little bit).
This method can also be used to convert PAL to NTSC (or NTSC to PAL).

[dphirschler]

Nice. So in a PAL/NTSC or vice versa conversion your changefps line would be 750, right?


Darryl

[hrlslcbr]

Yes. 25 x 30 = 750. 24 x 30 = 720.
This gives me good results, but you can (I believe) do it with other numbers, like:
120, for NTSC (29.97i) to Film (23.976) (Haven't tried this, but it should work; as you can divide 120 by 24 and 30).
The only bad thing is that you must use assumefps to make the fps an integer number, and this changes the length a little bit.

I have also been trying to simulate motion blur, but haven't found a way yet..

[Xoanon]

...After you render your timeline, export it as a filmstrip in photoshop. Reimport it into Premiere and you will be amazed at the results!

What do I render the timeline as, an AVI? Can thisbe opened in Photoshop?

I use Paint Shop Pro, is this a problem?

[Seeker47]

I'm curious why you think film has more realism than video? I've always hated the flickering and slow framerate of film. 24fps is very old technology and slow framerate to produce natural looking realism, as your eyes see everyday. I suppose filmmakers are just used to the "look of film", and don't want to change to higher speed framerate? Studios and movie theatres are too cheap to change to a different format and buy new equipment?
. . .
Please don't say film at 24fps looks "real life", like the Human eye sees it everyday.

The "old" technology -- at its best -- is more interpretive, creative, more dreamlike. (As opposed to literal, documentary, ordinary.)

http://www.maxivision48.com/

I would be interested to take a look at this, but I'll be surprised if it is something totally new and startling. Ever see the old ShowScan demo reel years ago ? That was at least 70 mil. film, projected at 60 f.p.s., with very good surround sound.

And of course there is Imax. Both formats can have a major impact.

[ecc]

I just stumbled across this thread and thought I'd try some of it out since I'm learning AviSynth. One question though and perhaps the answer quite obvious anyone with more experience: what are the v= at the beginning of each line of the avisynth scripts and the v's within the parentheses, for instance:

vw=width(v)
vh=height(v)

v=assumeTFF(v)
v=bob(v)
v=selectevery(v,4, 0,1,2)
v=assumefieldbased(v)
v=weave(v)
v=v.bicubicresize(vw,vh)

return v.assumefps(23.976)

Does the v stand for value? I can see that with the resize (vw,vh) but I don't quite understand the v in selectevery(v,4,0,1,2). Does the script have to contain v=?

[gadgetguy]

The v is a variable, it does not necessarily stand for anything, but is most often used to represent the video. a or A is often used to represent audio. A script doesn't require the use of variables as long as the filters are used in sequential order.
In the example script the use of of the v isn't strictly necessary, vw and vh could have been assigned without anything or by using the assumed variable 'last'.
vw = width(last) or width()
vh = height(last) or height()
but using it makes the script more readable and easier to follow.
The use of variables allows for non-linear editing. You can split video apart, apply filters to specific sections and then reassemble it later.