Are there everyday-consumer cameras available that can give movie-like results, not home video?

Question

I know no photography. But I would like to start a biography of myself. Are there any cameras that I can buy that will give me the dull, slightly slow effect that movie cameras have and not the overly-raw home video effect? Please also give price ranges (ballpark)

Answer 1

There's "some" accurate advice in the others answers, but there so many things about the differences in film and video (and just to much to put on here) that you will definately need to learn to get what you want.

Video camera manufacturers are finally catching on to putting some features in cameras that help to get you "close" to the film look. 24p does make a big difference. I shot footage with the AG-DVX100 in 24p, 30p, and normal 60i to compare. I have to say that the 24 and 30 frame rate progressive shooting modes did more to create the film look than any other feature I used "in" camera or on any camera, and I've been shooting video since I got my first camera in 94' with cams ranging from $500 to $25,000.

After comparing the footage on a monitor, I personally felt that the 30p mode not only looked as much like film than the 24p, but was better because the faster frame rate lended to a slightly sharper image and was a little more fluid or less strobe like. Those results revealed to me that the progressive scanning itself contributed as well to the film look when comparing to interlace. However, with the DVX100 being a SD cam, I felt the resolution suffered a bit when in progressive mode, and intend to get a HD cam with progressive myself. I'm looking at the HVR V1U.

True progressive camcoders
Panasonic AG-DVX100A (standard definition) around $2500
JVC HD110 (high definition) around $6000 with the lens
Sony HVR V1U (high definition) around $4200

Canon and Sony have both implemented psuedo frame "modes" in some of their models, but the critical concesus still shows that true progressive scanning is currently the best technology for the film look. However, no official testing or speculation has been put forth on the new frame modes in the Canon HD models.

Canon XL H1 (high def) around $10,000
Canon XH A1 (high def) around $4,000
Canon XH G1 (high def with genlock for studio use) around $5500
Sony HDR-FX1 (high def) around $3500
Sony HDR-FX7 (high def) around $3000

I've also seen PAL footage (25fps or 50i) that looked very convincing if only for the narrow contrast range of the video camera itself (inherent with all video cams). But the video went throught post production filtering as well. If you live in the States, then PAL will only work for you if you first dump the video into a compliant editor for conversion and post prod. or have a hardware converter so that if you wanted to, you could at least watch it on your television.

Until Canon's little HV20 (which has true 24p) hits the market in April, there's not a complete "in camera" solution for less than the price ranges you see. Now, this all depends on how picky you are. I'm somewhat of an extremist, so the rest of what's on here is just my opinion from my own experience, and my aggressive desire for everyone (including me) to be able to shoot "film" quality video.

The main reasons for the harsh look of video camera imaging is:

1. A wide depth of field (the distance between the closest object to the camera lens and the furthest object that are in focus). It's difficult to isolate a particular object for attention by throwing the foreground and background out of focus. It requires you to distance yourself as much as possible from the subject and then zoom in with the iris open as wide as possible without overexposing the image. I use neutral density filtering to achieve wider apertures.

2. narrow contrast range (the range of luminance from the brightest part of the image to the darkest part of the image with discernable detial). Unless you control the lighting of the scene, it'll be impossible most of the time to get an exposure that would be comperable to film. Film can capture a much wider range of light levels than video cameras while maintaining the overall detail.

3. narrow color contrast (range in gradations between prime colors). Once again, film is still the king of the hill in capturing the subtle distances from one specific color to the next. This problem is attacked by video camera manufacturers by putting three image sensors in the cameras instead of just one, splitting the burden of color reproduction between RED, GREEN, and BLUE.

4. Resolution (sharpness in terms of the ability to enlarge the image before the image becomes unacceptably distorted). Unless Panavision's "Genesis" camera has matched 35mm film resolution, there's no video camera that has been made yet to compete with film resolution above 16mm. This isn't a huge issue since most material of the home user is going to end up on DVD. High Definition is very good, considering that Indie Videographers were stuck with SD till' HD got here.

I will admit to not having seen the results first hand that people have gotten with Magic Bullet. I have read good things about it, so it is apparently working to their satisfaction. Twixtor is another company that made a motion vector software that was reviewed as being perfect in creating "film motion." Increasing contrast, color correction, and doing other tweaks in post is definately a must if only to ensure consistency between shots, if you have the software or can afford it.

Shooting for the film look is a battle you don't not want to fight without either: 1. a camera that has progressive shooting, or 2. you have complete lighting and staging control of the environment in which you're shooting. If you try to get the look in post, you need the best image you can get that is tailored to the post production tweaks.

Be carefull on how you chose to acquire the "dull" look. This is not necessarily a native characteristic to film. Film, with the help of skilled lighting by cinematographers, produce images that are meant to flatter the subject by creating more even surface tones. This can be perceived as a "softness", but it is particular to surfaces and not lines between objects or shadows. Trying to recreate that effect by doing things that will degrade the image resolution from your video camera may give you very undesirable results, especially when displaying the video on an HD TV, or video monitor.

Answer 2

Well, yes, and no. For under $1000, which is probably your budget, there are cameras that have a "cinema mode" function or a "movie mode" or something like that. It won't be true 24p (which is film's frame rate), but it will look closer to it, and sometimes the picture gamma and contrast is slightly adjusted as well. In canon's new HV20, I heard there is a 24p function, but as for whether it is "real" 24p, I'm not sure. While there are many cameras that offer these type of functions, the panasonic DVX100 is still the camera most filmmakers turn to to get a film-look, without post-processing in a program. However, it costs around $3,200-$3,500, and is not the easiest camera to use if you are a beginner. Frame rate is not the only factor in creating a film-look, however. There are software solutions that allow you to convert 60i ("video" footage), into 30p or 24p, such as Magic Bullet. Magic Bullet Suite, which costs $799 and runs as a plugin in Adobe after effects, allows you to convert your video to 24p/30p, apply a film-look, deinterlace, deartifact, and create optical effects. Magic bullet editors, which runs in editing programs such as Premiere Pro and Final Cut pro, costs $399, and doesn't have frame rate conversions, but allows you to apply a film-look to mimic film. These are great programs, and I own both of these, but if you don't have a fast computer, rendering will take a fairly long time. If you're tight on cash, I've found that the following method doesn't necessarily create a film-look per se, but definitely makes your video less video-like. Get a fairly cheap camera (miniDV, of course), with a "fake" cinema mode. If possible, test them out before you buy. When recording, use the cinema mode, and then after you import onto your computer, apply a brightness and contrast effect (In premiere pro this is one effect, however in others it will be separate, so you might have to apply two separate effects). Tweak the contrast and the brightness to get a filmic response. Ideally, the contrast should be slightly higher than the brightness, but shouldn't be too high. If you have a broadcast colors effect, then boost the contrast up as much as you want to your liking, then apply the broadcast effect afterwards. If you don't have the broadcast colors effect, then increase contrast to give it an edge, but don't increase too much; otherwise, it will look weird on your TV. Optional: apply a 0.3 pixel Gaussian blur. Obviously this method that I just described won't make your video look totally like film; in fact, it might not even make it look like film. But it will, at the very least, make your video less video-like. Hope this helps!


------------EDIT--------------
In response to Earl D's answer about how 24p doesn't make a difference, that is not true. All TVs display interlaced pictures. Yet, if 24p didn't make a difference, you wouldn't be able to tell the motion differences between film and video. And you wouldn't be asking this question. Which makes it obviously not true. So definitely go for 24p, or something close to it (i.e. 30p, or cinema mode if you don't have Magic bullet). It's one of those things where if it is applied, then you won't be able to tell, unless you closely observe. Yet, if you compared it side-by-side to video, or if it was 60i, you would instantly know something was missing. And as for Earl D's suggestion about capturing video via AV cables, I can see the logic, but it's not a good idea. If you want a softer look, you can apply a slight blur, which still retains the picture quality, but softens the edges, as opposed to AV cables, which reduces quality AND softens the edges. Hope this helps!

Answer 3

Well you have to do it by playing around with things. I used software to step print and make slo motion (won't work for things if you are speaking, only for bits of you moving around, like for voice overs).

Low light levels also give a prime time TV film look.

Cut your lighting down, but DON'T use a Sony, use other cameras that use light amplifiers and they use more pixels and give that grainy, misty look.

A lot of people don't like that look.

So, work with like 40 watt or 60 watt light bulbs, just enough to light you and the room to a degree. Minimalist lighting.

Then use software like Studio DeLuxe to step print this.

I also went from camera to computer using AV cables via a capture card. That knocked the resolution down a bit.

YOu have to experiment.

To be frank PROFESSIONAL cameras will give you MORE of a video look, that sharp, raw look you don't want.

That look mostly comes from a well lighted stage, good lenses and high resolution cameras.

So the home camcorder is better for your vision of things.

I personally think the two other comments above (while they mean well and are accurate) are sending you in the wrong direction. I don't think they understand you want to smooth out the qualty, not increase it.

And going to 24 FPS has no benefit UNLESS you want to transfer to film!

http://www.rawkis.com/new/changesvideo.html

This will give you an idea of how the slow mo and lighting worked. You need Real Player and the quality has been dropped so much for the web that it gives a lot of artifacts you wont get if you go to DVD or something.

This was all done with 60 watt light bulbs and almost normal room lighting.

The slow mo doesn't come in until well after the song starts.

Answer 4

A "movie type", everyday-consumer Camcorder? Price must be an issue... Therefore I would say the HV20 by Canon.

Things that stand out:

High Definition Video
True 1920x1080 capture
It has real 24p (film is 24p)

The price is around $1,100 but is a pretty good price considering what it can do.

It's a lot better than the normal $500 Camcorders, has features of some of the large players (like the HX A1) but is around $2,400 less expensive! (I'm thinking of getting one of these!)

Hope that helps.

Jeff

Answer 5

Yes there are many camcorders like that, but they are costy. My favorite is the Sony Handycam Camcorder which records high definition movies and can edit movies real time. It has a great lens and has 3CCD for true vibrant color. But, it cost around $ 2500.