Use the color correction tools first then lower the gamma and see if you like that look. Colors should be fairly saturated as well. Add a tiny amount (.002) of gaussian blur to experiment, but don't make a determination until you have rendered a loop section and viewed it on a few different TVs.

John

Nairou, speaking only for myself a good 50% of it is the camera. I use a Canon XL1 and always shoot in what they call " Frame Movie Mode ". The difference is primarily how many frames per second are being shot. I know its not the " best " camera out there, but I would think it would be hard to beat for the price. If you do a search as someone suggested, there are some software programs that can help, but having good source material is invaluable. I think it also has a lot to do with basic stuff like framing your shot, lighting, and good all around camera work. Its real easy to have subtle bounces and jitters when your using any camera, let alone one that fits into the palm of your hand.

I'll stop there, I run out of steam quick when I'm trying to sound like I know what I'm talking about ! Best of luck to ya.

- Ray

www.undergroundplanet.com

Hi Caleb,

85% of that "pro look" really comes from lighting and strong photographic practices. Check out this short: http://www.405themovie.com/

These guys used off the shelf computers and software, and shot on a consumer level one chip video camera. The difference between them and the average Joe is an understanding of lighting, story telling and photography. Oh yeah, compositing too - but that doesn't have anything to do with your original question. :-) Do some research on basic lighting and cinematography, you'd be surprised at how much value you can add to your videos by following some very basic practices. Hope this helps.

Thanks,

Shawn

Is the issue "professional" vs "home-made" or whether video looks like film?

I suspect when oil paint was introduced in Renaissance Europe, lots of painters argued that it didn't look like water color and some, perhaps, tried to make the oil paint look like water color on their canvas. Others, however, embraced oil as a new medium and exploited it to the nth degree.

Why not shoot with film if the goal is to make a project look like film? Video is a new medium, with its own strengths and weaknesses, its own unique look. I recently saw an indy production with Alan Arkin that was shot entirely in HDTV and projected in the theatre digitally. It was stunning -- some of the greatest color depth I've ever seen on screen -- the lighting was excellent, and about the only criticism one might level at the work was in the lack of detail in some of the shadows, a characteristic of video owing to its inability to handle high contrast well. The look certainly wasn't film-like: it was an entirely new look, just like oil paintings were. An increasing number of theatres nation wide are turning to digital projection; it probably won't be too many years before distribution on 35mm film is a thing of the past.

The future lies in video. It's very rewarding to explore this (relatively) new medium by experiment with lighting, the use of filters, depth of field, iris settings, etc., in camera, to max out the potential of the medium, rather than trying to make video look like film in post.

Happy holidays to all.

I think in the end its the camera limitations.Things like the size of the chips for depth of field. The quality of the lens(Biggie) and the tape format.

The sound quality. Proper recording/ monitoring. Also in editing having a good monitor so that you can see what color correction is doing on the fly. And of course LIGHTING.

Professionals all have their individual jobs, and do them without thinking. For an amatuer one man band there is so much to do that its dificult to be instinctive. a Pro film is a collaberation of different skills and better equipment on sets ect.

I'm a big one for camera as well. I use a GL-1 and will probably get another or a GL-2 before moving to an XL-1s. More bells & whistles on the XL, yes, but a better lense (IMO) on the GL. For the size & price, I don't think you can beat it. And Frame mode does make quite a difference.

I agree with sound being important. How good would Star Wars or Star Trek be without sound (because sound doesn't travel in space)? For good examples of sound, try a Jackie Chan movie (First Strike has GREAT surround sound), Star Wars (first 3), Star Trek 2 (great sound), or any modern console game with surround sound (Gamecube, PS2, or XBox, I recomend Zelda or Metroid). I was playing Doom 2 last week on my PC and just realized how well it sounded (monsters off in the distance, good left-right seperation, nice bass).

Remember, people see your video from only 1 angle: in front. But, sound can be anywhere from 2 angles (left right) to 6 (7.1 surround). So, you can do lots with sound that you can't do with video. And remember, Star Wars & Alien were low budget films. Lucas and Scott knew what they were doing!