• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

how do they make movies look like movies?

watdahel

Golden Member
Why do movies look different from a live broadcast? Do you know what I'm saying? Take for instance, a news broadcast; the image is very prestine(I can't think of a better word) like something you would record with your camcorder. On the other hand, movies you go to see in theaters are, well, movie quality. How do they do that? Is it some kind of filter? What's it called.

It's not the camera. I've watched "behind the scenes" features of DVD movies that show the Director watching a replay of the scene in a small monitor. Even then the shot still looks live(not movie release quality).
 
yeah, i know exactly what you mean... like on some tv shows most scenes "play" the same way, then suddenly there would be one or 2 that seems to "play" with that effect like home recorded movie or something.... seems to me like a difference in frame rate? or are all tv broadcasts 24fps?
 
Good question and this always bothers me too. I would like to know how they do it. It's got that "movie look" instead of live filmed look.
 
Post production editing. They change colors, brightntess, contrast, tones, add softness, etc.
 
most movies are done on film. film has a high resolution, much higher than the 640 x 480 (i think) that is broadcast on TV. TV is also broadcast at 30 fps, and film is 24 fps. Did you know half of the time you're seeing a movie you're in the dark? As the film rolls by, the lamp on the projector turns off then back when a frame is in place. The little TV monitor that directors watch during filming is a rough copy of the film put into digitized form for veiwing.
 
Ive always understood it to be mostly due to the 24fps. Most tv shows are at 30 fps, and many live broadcasts are actually at 60fps interlaced.
 
Originally posted by: yobarman
most movies are done on film. film has a high resolution, much higher than the 640 x 480 (i think) that is broadcast on TV. TV is also broadcast at 30 fps, and film is 24 fps. Did you know half of the time you're seeing a movie you're in the dark? As the film rolls by, the lamp on the projector turns off then back when a frame is in place. The little TV monitor that directors watch during filming is a rough copy of the film put into digitized form for veiwing.

Yup, it's all about the film. Also the lighting and colour technicians have a great input to movies 'look and feel'.

A live broadcast is mostly all video and a completely different animal.
 
i'd also like to add that Star Wars episode 2 i think was the first movie recorded digitally. To get the resolution that you can find on film with a digital camera you need a huge amount of hard drive space. The cameras used in the filming of Episode 2 were about half the size of a small car.

I know all this because i'm a film/animation major lol
 
Originally posted by: yobarman
i'd also like to add that Star Wars episode 2 i think was the first movie recorded digitally. To get the resolution that you can find on film with a digital camera you need a huge amount of hard drive space. The cameras used in the filming of Episode 2 were about half the size of a small car.

I know all this because i'm a film/animation major lol

They used the Sony HDW-F900 to film Episode 2 but that was not the first movie to do so.

The earlier films that used it were basically ones nobody has ever heard of.
 
film speed is a big factor, along with lighting and post production manipulation. also the quality of the optics on the camera play a big difference too. higher resolution at a faster frame rate equals a better quality replay.
 
is it just me or do soap operas also have a completely different feel than movies or tv, not that i watch them...
 
Originally posted by: AUMM
is it just me or do soap operas also have a completely different feel than movies or tv, not that i watch them...

I've noticed that. I watch Days of our Lives. 😱
 
Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
Originally posted by: yobarman
most movies are done on film. film has a high resolution, much higher than the 640 x 480 (i think) that is broadcast on TV. TV is also broadcast at 30 fps, and film is 24 fps. Did you know half of the time you're seeing a movie you're in the dark? As the film rolls by, the lamp on the projector turns off then back when a frame is in place. The little TV monitor that directors watch during filming is a rough copy of the film put into digitized form for veiwing.

Yup, it's all about the film. Also the lighting and colour technicians have a great input to movies 'look and feel'.

A live broadcast is mostly all video and a completely different animal.

Film/lighting/etc. does play a large part of it, but it's the editting and effects that give the movie the soft, rich feel that sets it apart from TV, rough cut and homevideo.

<-- worked as a gaffer & effects artist on a few films
 
Originally posted by: AUMM
is it just me or do soap operas also have a completely different feel than movies or tv, not that i watch them...

Yeah I notice that when my mom is watching The Young and the Restless. It's the lighting, color balance, etc. It's not the framerate!
 
Originally posted by: Beau
Film/lighting/etc. does play a large part of it, but it's the editting and effects that give the movie the soft, rich feel that sets it apart from TV, rough cut and homevideo.

<-- worked as a gaffer & effects artist on a few films

I've seen hundreds of hours of both film and video before there were any effects or editing done, and they are quite different. It's grain vs. pixels, contrast, edge sharpness, etc. Not the effects/editing.

<-- five years working in a motion picture/video lab.
 
Originally posted by: kranky
Originally posted by: Beau
Film/lighting/etc. does play a large part of it, but it's the editting and effects that give the movie the soft, rich feel that sets it apart from TV, rough cut and homevideo.

<-- worked as a gaffer & effects artist on a few films

I've seen hundreds of hours of both film and video before there were any effects or editing done, and they are quite different. It's grain vs. pixels, contrast, edge sharpness, etc. Not the effects/editing.

<-- five years working in a motion picture/video lab.
Yep it's mostly a matter of film vs. video. If any of you are Twilight Zone fans you can see the difference (even in black & white) when watching a "normal" episode vs. the four or five episodes that were shot on video during the second season.

IMHO, video looks like crap. i much prefer the film look and feel.

l2c

P.S. Soap operas probably "look" the way they do (they are definitely video, BTW) due to softening filters... so everything has that hazy, dreamy look.

 
Originally posted by: yobarman
most movies are done on film. film has a high resolution, much higher than the 640 x 480 (i think) that is broadcast on TV. TV is also broadcast at 30 fps, and film is 24 fps. Did you know half of the time you're seeing a movie you're in the dark? As the film rolls by, the lamp on the projector turns off then back when a frame is in place. The little TV monitor that directors watch during filming is a rough copy of the film put into digitized form for veiwing.

film does not have a resolution.

resolution describes a digital media.

things shot on film are much higher quality than most digital productions
 
Originally posted by: BennyD
Originally posted by: yobarman
most movies are done on film. film has a high resolution, much higher than the 640 x 480 (i think) that is broadcast on TV. TV is also broadcast at 30 fps, and film is 24 fps. Did you know half of the time you're seeing a movie you're in the dark? As the film rolls by, the lamp on the projector turns off then back when a frame is in place. The little TV monitor that directors watch during filming is a rough copy of the film put into digitized form for veiwing.

film does not have a resolution.

resolution describes a digital media.

things shot on film are much higher quality than most digital productions

I think film does have a resolution. Some films are grainier than others...faster = bigger grain.

My 2 cents for the original question is Cinematography.

lighting, angle, set design... i can think of tones of stuff.
 
Originally posted by: luv2chill
P.S. Soap operas probably "look" the way they do (they are definitely video, BTW) due to softening filters... so everything has that hazy, dreamy look.
That hazy, dreamy look is just you losing your grip on reality, which naturally happens when you watch soap. 🙂
 
On the opposite end of things... how do they make replays of football games from last year look like they were filmed 10+ years ago?
Except of course for the HD games... those look damn good live or not. 😉
 
film stock vs. digital/tape media


you have to develop and process film unlike transfering tape to tape (TV/digital).

depending on the year and the type of process, many films also look different. hint: watch the old movies at the begining to see the process type (e.g. vistavision, panspectra, colorvision)
 
Originally posted by: Mutilator
On the opposite end of things... how do they make replays of football games from last year look like they were filmed 10+ years ago?
Except of course for the HD games... those look damn good live or not. 😉

Video degrading maybe?

All the NFL replays I see are from NFL films...and those are amazing quality. The Raiders/Patriots playoff game from last year came out great on film.
 
Back
Top