• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Filmic DSLR vs Video-esque DSLR footage.

E

eivashchenko

Hi, I noticed DSLR footage can look filmic when doing landscape shots or macro, but as soon as you get to footage of people, it often time stops looking filmic and starts having that video look.

To me, it comes out especially in the way people move; it's too smooth (unless people crank up the shutter, in which it's too "To Save Private Ryan"-ey.

Here's a random example I found on YT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1E6d5IUIxQs

There's something about the motion where it's too smooth and video-ey.

Then I found some GH2 footage that's still DSLR, but doesn't have that sort of smoothness. All in all, it looks a lot more filmic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0v3Ntz24ew

Anybody know why that is? Is it that video two used a film grain overlay? Something about the hacked GH2? I have no idea.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Uhh, dude, what?

The second video you posted most certainly used speed-ramping (or the digital post equivalent). Is that what you think is "filmic"?

(That's an honest question. I think you might've been impressed by their editing, but what they shot doesn't look particularly "filmic" to me.)

There are plenty of reasons why shooting on film might be better than shooting on DSLR (or EVIL, which is what the GH2 actually is). Motion-blur is not one of those reasons.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Neither of those shorts look awfully 'filmic' to me.

DSLR looks like DSLR, just like RED looks like RED and ALexa looks like Alexa. Some cameras look more 'filmic' than others, none of them look like real film. Most of them look viedo-ey to some extent.

DSLRs are a great way to make a movie for cheap, but you can't expect a $2,000 camera to compete with a $30,000 camera, $90,000 camera or film.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DSLR definitely won't be interchangeable with a RED or an Alexa; I'm definitely not expecting that. I'm just talking about one being more film-like then the other strictly in terms of how the motion that doesn't have that ultra-smooth video characteristic.

Do you think it was just ramped down from 30fps? Because it doesn't look like the classic 48 or 60 to 24 slow-mo to me. However, I've only been in the game for a few years, so I'm definitely still green to a lot of things in the realm of cinematography.

Here's another I noticed doesn't have the ultra smoothness of that first video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXO2pKMEG7E
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There are a lot of post effects as well as speed ramping in that last video.

I'd be curious as to see a short not shot on DSLR, but still shot on digital that you think does not exhibit the characteristics you're talking about. I'm still not sure if I understand exactly what you're picking out as too 'video-ey' - all the shorts you've posted look video-ey to some extent
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
That looks 10x more video-ey than your first example, so I think I'm still confused!

Do you really mean you like speed ramping as those two 'filmic' DSLR shorts you posted had a bunch of speed ramping and post effects..
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I also feel you have it all backwards.

The first example (french short on 7D) was great. It looked filmic, professional and you can't really tell it's a DSLR unless you're paying attention to every betraying detail.

The last example is the worst one. From the colors to the motion, it's just doesn't come off as "filmic".
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yeah, I have to agree that if we're comparing to "Filmic"... the first has much smoother transition in the grays (specifically the darker grays), whereas the second has horribly blown out highlights in te catchlights and windows. The camera motion is much less professional in the second as well and the editing is much choppier in the second.

The first one is quite good... although, I didn't necessarily mistake it for film, I did see it as much more advanced technically than the second one.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I didn't watch all of the first two examples, but the biggest difference I noticed was that the second film seemed to have a much shallower depth of field. At least in the shots I looked at. Is that what the OP is talking about?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
My apologies. I read that completely wrong. I thought you wanted an example of the video-ey look I was talking about, but not shot on a DSLR.

The more I look at it, I think it may not have been the movement of the subjects, but rather the camera shake. There's a more video-esque camera shake in the MAX short. I'm guessing that must have been what was putting me off.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top