The "look" of video footage

[Dale]

I'm so grateful for the concentration of smart people on this board. I speak here with no irony.

Here's something I've always been curious about. For the most part, I can immediately spot the difference between something shot on video and on film. (Although lately the highest of the high end video footage is hard to distinguish from film.) You know, a soap opera on tv has a different look than a DVD movie on tv. Why is that? I've always gathered it's a resolution issue--with film having higher-res. Is that all there is to it or is it something else?

[kkrell]

The dynamic range is different, deeper dark areas, more detail in bright area. Difference in sharpness at the edges of the screen.

Kevin Krell

[Wanderer]

I'm sure that part of it is also that film is filmed either with a tripod, or a steadycam (a patented camera that uses gyroscopes to keep the video "jitters" out). I'm sure part of it is also the fact that most film shoots have very controlled and diffused lighting, whereas video has whatever light is available, which doesn't light things nearly as evenly.

[djm]

I think the main points have been touched on. Film is much higher resolution than digital video. That is because the grains of photosensitive chemicals on the film are so much smaller and packed tighter together than the picture elements (pixels) on a charge coupled device (CCD). Also film reacts differently to light than a CCD. I would not agree that video is unlit. It just has to be lit differently than film. The last episode of Star Wars, Revenge of the Sith, was shot with a new digital camera from Lucas Arts that tries to look as much as possible as film. You be the judge as to how well it did.

djm

[Wanderer]

Ah..I was thinking of the difference between something shot impromptu on a camcorder, and something shot on film, not taking modern digital camcorders into account..I guess we need some more clarification from Dale

But in general, historically, film has had better quality than tape. Here's a format guide.. http://www.terraguide.com/Formats.html

[fearfaoin]

As for soap operas, I used to wonder why 70's British TV looked
so different from US TV of the same era. I think it's the same
thing... the lighting. If you take a still photo of a person with
your Cannon Crapcam, the bright flash will illuminate the shot,
but will also wash out the colors, and will change the way
shadows lie on the subject. We're used to looking at people
with light angled from above. A flash usually lights a subject
straight-on. Professional photographers either use those
"umbrellas" to diffuse the light, or have a handheld flash which
they can aim in a different direction, bouncing the light so that
they create the light/shadow combination they want. This is a
big reason professional photographs look professional.

I think the same is true for soap operas. Because they are trying
to pump episodes out quickly, the lighting job is very different
than on prime-time TV, movies even moreso. Some of this may
also be on purpose, to create a certain effect.

Also, try the experiment with the TV muted. I think the way the
sound is recorded makes a bigger difference to our perception
than we realize.

[BoneQuint]

There's also the frame rate. Video is shot with two 30-frame per second "fields" that are interlaced. That is, the odd-numbered rows of light on the screen are recorded for the first 1/60th of a second, the even numbered rows are recorded for the next 60th, then back to the odds. So half the screen changes every 60th of a second, the whole screen changes every 30th of a second. Film isn't interlaced, the whole screen changes every 24th of a second (although to display it on a TV, it's interlaced by duplicating frames). Through a lifetime of watching video and film, this difference can be picked up pretty quickly, even if you don't know why you can tell the difference.

The shutter of a film camera can be open for only a short period of time during the 24th of a second (especially under high light situations), so it can have a more "stuttered" look when there's motion. On the other hand, the shutter can be open for almost the whole 24th of a second, which is a longer time than a video frame, so you can get more motion blur with film sometimes too.

Another issue is the size of the recorded image: the size of each frame of film, or the size of the CCD with a video camera. Film is generally larger than CCDs (until you get to very expensive video cameras), so you can have a much narrower depth of field on film. That is, you can arrange it so that an actor's head is in clear focus, while the near background is blurred and soft. This is often used to bring out a subject, or for mood, or just because it looks pleasing. In video, you're more likely to see everything pretty much in focus, which gives a more "realistic" look, but less artistic, more cluttered.

Early video cameras used tubes to record the image, which left streaky light trails when bright objects moved.

Because CCDs process color differently, the colors will look different under video. They tend to have a greenish, dull, artificial, electronic look. Video cameras try to use filters to correct for this, but they are more or less successful, and can add even more to an "artificial" look.

If you're using a lower-end video camera with red, green, and blue on a single chip, there's another level of interpolation involoved, which causes more video/artificial look. 3 CCDs do a better job (which all professional cameras have).

I think someone mentioned the edge effects: when a bright object is on a darker background, you'll see a "halo" around the bright object at the edge, which is another video artifact. Again, good cameras minimize this effect.

There's also CCD "noise": if you record pure black, you actually get low-contrast, dark, swimming, electronic-looking dots. Film has its own "noise," the grain of the film, but it's a more organic sort of noise, and sometimes even pleasing. Like the difference between the sound of surf, and the sound of a TV tuned to an unused channel.

It is also true that film, being more expensive than video tape, is usually more carefully lit and more thought goes into setting up the shots. Also, since film has a reputation for being more "artistic," it's usually used that way.

Hm, there's probably more that I'm not thinking of...

[Flyingcursor]

I've always wondered that very question.

I remember when "All in the Family" premiered. The first thing I noticed was it looked like a soap opera. Soon most all TV sitcoms were using it.

[Martin Milner]

You know, a soap opera on tv has a different look than a DVD movie on tv. Why is that?

In soap operas the sets are cheap and wobbly.

Films have higher budgets, so they wobble less.

http://www2.prestel.co.uk/cello/AcornAn ... odeSix.htm

[Walden]

Soap operas also use a lot of brown in the sets. The idea is supposedly to look affluent, with leather and wood. This also gives it a 1970's feel.

[emmline]

I've always wondered that very question.

I remember when "All in the Family" premiered. The first thing I noticed was it looked like a soap opera. Soon most all TV sitcoms were using it.

Our minds are more alike than you ever suspected, Fly.

[straycat82]

Soap operas also use a lot of brown in the sets. The idea is supposedly to look affluent, with leather and wood. This also gives it a 1970's feel.

They also seem to have a bit of a reddish tint to them.