Talk:Film look

Was Brookside filmized?

Was Brookside filmized in its latter years? It did seem to have an awkward, cinematic atmosphere that seemed really out of step with its earlier cosy soap feel. jamesgibbon 30 June 2005 23:55 (UTC)

Greetings from ten years later - Google throws up a bunch of forum posts from 2003 complaining about the show's filmised look, but sadly there's nothing that looks like a good source. My recollection is that it was one of the first shows that embraced filmisation. It was particularly noticeable because it was a soap opera, and the film effect didn't make any sense, except that the producer was convinced he was making high art. 146.198.78.233 (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I was a vision engineer at mersey tv from 1984-89, & we certainly did quite a bit of experimental stuff to get the best out of the ENG cameras we shot on back then. it wasn't until CCD sensors were available from about 1986 that we started to play around with light levels & gamma a bit more; prior to this the lighting had to be quite flat to avoid damage to the tubes, while maintaining enough level to keep the video signal from degrading during post; the tapes we sent to C4 (1" c-format) were all two generations down from the raw material; we would make the individual episodes first, then the omnibus was a comp from those, then we made safety dubs of the whole lot, keeping the first gen individual episodes & the third gen omnibus, so that C4 always got the same quality across the showings. periodically, the engineers at C4 would write record-reports complaining about the lighting, which was very natural compared to "coronation street" or "eastenders", not least because of the amount of natural light we were obliged to use in the (real) houses, compared with the studio-grid lighting of almost every other serial drama on tv. with the release of sony's BVP-7 CCD camera, just before we started making "waterfront beat" for BBC1, we found we could manipulate the gamma & even (sometimes) add 3dB of gain before things started to look noisy. we used a piece of nylon stocking on the back element as a diffuser, & this went some way to achieving a more natural look than we'd been used to from the sony 330s. another huge difference was that the CCDs were sharp right into the corners, where with the tube cameras we'd been looking through a port-hole. I had to 'rack' the registration of a 330 on more than one occasion, because of beam-pulling effects. BUT we didn't do anything in post, because back then the technology to do this sort of thing to baseband video was very crude, & would've left us with pictures that were soft, & would've raised eyebrows at C4 & at the IBA, under whose code-of-practice we were working.

by 1988-9, framestores from for-a & quantel were able to do the sort of manipulation the article touches on. in order to maintain the line structure of the normal interlaced PAL signal whilst giving the desired illusion of reduced temporal resolution, the for-a (for example) would discard one whole field's worth of lines & replace it with the opposite field's lines, read out from memory & offset by one line. this reduced the vertical resolution too, of course, but this was a small price to pay for some arty types. a more sophisticated approach would've been to perform motion interpolation between the two fields & create new identical but interlaced output fields using this data. I saw this done too, but not for "brookside"! by the time the show was winding down, it was being cut on non-linear edit seats, & doubtless the realism of the 80s version I worked on had long since fallen away, both in the scripts & in their execution. I can make some enquiries.

duncanrmi (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge

Merge with Field-removed video?

Final sentence meaningless?

HDTV offers the ability to natively transmit progressive scan video to the home, meaning many filmizing techniques will become obsolete.

I don't see that transmission has anything to do with the filmizing process. If you shoot on SD interlaced video, it will still need to be filmized before (or possibly after) being scaled up to HD.

And if you shoot 1080i with a full frame rate, you'd still need to filmize for transmission at (effectively) 1080p (the lines are still encoded and transmitted interlaced but they come together to make a single frame). Of course it'd probably be much easier to shoot on 720p, but then the sentence should say that HD offers the ability to natively [i]shoot[/i] progressive scan video, which some SD cameras already do.

Or have I got something mixed up? David 19:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Home & Away is shot in HD

While it's possible that Home & Away is shot in 1080i50 and filmized to 1080p25, it's also possible that it is shot in 1080p25.

Either one would produce a similar result in 576p50 (seen in Australia) and 576i50 (seen in Australia and UK). Whophd 20:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The term "Filmizing"

I have never heard this term used in the industry. Can we get some sources? I have heard "get the film look" or more profressionally, "cinematic", but never "I want it filmized". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.149.55.37 (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps the expression is less common in the USA, but it is certainly used (at least informally) in professional circles in the UK. 80.93.170.99 17:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've worked in uk post for 10 years, written a book on the subject and i've never heard the phrase. although googling the term returns around 1500 hits...

Surrealroad (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been in the US industry for over 7 years and I've never heard this term. I'd like to see a reputable source that actually uses it, otherwise this article should be retitled or deleted. Filmnuts (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

An awful name, if I may say so. Why not stick to good old "film look" or "film emulation"? I do this stuff and I have not heard "filmizing" once. It's funny, because Americans are usually the ones to make verbs out of nouns (to google, etc.); this time it's the British. Even funnier is that they opted for the American "-ization" suffix. How times have changed! Speaking of Google...I found 300,000 hits for "film look" and under 2000 hits for filmizing--and I bet half of them are from Wikipedia. I thought maybe this was being unfair since there are more American Web sites than British ones, so I restricted the domain to .uk, and what did I find? "film look" still trumps "filmizing" by a factor of twenty. I think this article should be moved unless a good case is made to the contrary. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 23:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If the newsgroup uk.tech.broadcast is anything to go by, then the term "filmic effect" (noun) is more common than "filmization". In my experience as a viewer, normal transformation to video of filmed content has few side effects, other than carriage wheels appearing to rotate in the wrong direction. The artificial "filmic effect", on the other hand, often makes the whole production appear as though it was shot under strobe lighting. The article needs to include a full technical description of this type of manipulation of video, and a full description of the consequences. I can watch hundreds of TV channels and only a few are transforming their pictures in this manner. Given that I have no desire to discover whether I have latent photo-epilepsy, it is easier to switch off or change channel, than end up in hospital because some yuppie at the BBC in London has decided that such and such a programme should be broadcast with filmic effect. 149.254.200.224 (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who is filmized

I've reverted, again, the removal of the 2005 series of Doctor Who as a filmized production. The contributor stated:

"This isnt true. TV guide and TV Times (from the UK) both say Doctor Who is filmed"

I presume they were using "filmed" as a simile for "shot" - TV Guide and TV Times aren't exactly trade publications. If you watch Doctor Who Confidential you can see quite clearly that the series is shot on Sony video cameras, and the Outpost Gallifrey FAQ (http://www.gallifreyone.com/newseriesfaq.php) will tell you the tape format is Betacam.

Or even better, the Doctor Who page itself tells us:

The current series is recorded in 576i25 DigiBeta widescreen format and then filmised to give a 25p image in post-production using a Snell and Wilcox Alchemist Platinum.

David 10:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This is what i recall being from TV Guide,

Unlike the old Doctor Who series which was shot largely on videotape, the new Doctor Who is entirly filmed

When I have time I am going to go through my collection and find the exact issue and give a direct quote and volume and issue numeber so it can be confirmed. Nevilledad 00:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any publication is infallible; it's possible that one or the other has made a mistake, and this is one case where simple references probably won't be enough. Fourohfour 09:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think TV Guide was being, for want of a better phrase, simple (and/or mistaken). What better reference do you need than behind-the-scenes footage from Doctor Who Confidential showing Sony DigiBeta cameras being used to record the new series? And, come to think of it, one of the old WhoSpy photos on the website was of a box of videotapes (which I thought were DVCPro at the time). David 11:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Is Porridge Notable?

I query this bit:

The 1970s BBC TV show Porridge provides a stark example of the visual differences between film and videotape. The show employed videotape for scenes inside Fletch's cell, whereas film was used for scenes outside of the cell. The difference in lighting style and frame rate is very noticeable .

Reason is that it really isn't that notable. It was very common for UK (and Australian) television productions of the 1960s through to the late 1970s to use the integrated method mixing 16mm film location work / videotaped in studio interiors. It is not like Porridge was the only show to do this. Doctor Who, and plenty of comedies like The Goodies, Man About the House all did this. The list goes on and on. Melbn (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

it's a particularly good example of the technique, though, because the transition from inside the cell to outside on the prison landing was seen often, was noticeably awkward (change in the audio quality too) & all of this during one of the highest rating comedy shows of the 70s.

duncanrmi (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Why filmize? Other problems?

1) Apart from being a special effect, what is the purpose of filmizing? To fool viewers into believing a production is more expensive? That it came from Hollywood?

2) Especially, since any conversion will tend to reduce quality, why reduce quality?

3) DOF depends solely on lens, in a still camera. Why does "sensor or format size" enter into it? VistaVision is a resolution and a format -- both this article and VistaVision seem to be confusing "Circle of Confusion" with DOF. Higher resolution gives the potential for a very deep DOF -- but read Depth of field, high resolution simply improves the ability to see something that the lens saw as in focus. If it wasn't focused in the lens, better resolution makes little or no difference. I've changed the article to explain that it's the wider range of usable f-stops that improves DOF options, not the sensor. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason for filmizing is that people react negatively to [High Motion] in drama. The reason why is not really understood, but the evidence is quite clear. The connection between sensor size and DOF is well known in video. Promotion for sony's new camcorder, the NEX-VG10 gives clear examples of it, and credits the much larger sensor for the artistic improvement. Algr (talk) 08:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

VistaVision was invented to overcome the granularity of film stock and was abandoned when improved film stock was available. As it used twice the size of regular formats it needed actually more light, therefore a wider aperture, which would result in a loss of DOF in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.120.0 (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

HDR video does not exist.

In the second paragraph the article says: "Modern video cameras have reached or surpassed the same dynamic range of film, especially when used in HDR modes." But the [hdr] article says that HDR video does not yet exist except in some special cases. (Time lapse) Should this be removed? Algr (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Magic Bullet

The mention of Magic Bullet as a 'common term for grading' seems like a product plug. I certainly don't think it's genuinely a common term for grading, although it's becoming increasingly common for Magic Bullet products to be used to grade at a prosumer level. Six Ways (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. Magic Bullet is a product used to color grade, not a term to describe the process itself. Furthermore, it looks like "FilmLook" is also the name of a product, not the process. Additionally, "Cine Look" is not a term used to describe the process, rather it would be used to describe the results (if it was even used at all). I am removing all three terms. Filmnuts (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

I seriously question whether "filmizing" is an actual industry term or discrete process. A Google search returns no results from industry sources. I've worked in the industry for 7 years (specifically in the camera department, which is responsible for implementing most of the techniques described in this article) and I've never heard anyone use the term before. I also have a BA in film and photography, which I bring up not because it makes me an expert (it doesn't), but because it means I have read many books on filmmaking and I have never seen the term used before in any published text (industry accepted or otherwise).

While I have no doubt that each of the individual techniques described by this article are industry accepted and commonly used, I don't believe that the term "filmizing" is an umbrella term used to describe them all nor is it any specific process. I also don't doubt that there are certain things that can be done to make images originating on video appear more like they originated on film. However, there is no specific process for this. All of the techniques are simply options that a director of photography/cinematographer/videographer has at his/her disposal to use to create a desired look, whether or not he/she is making a daytime soap opera or a feature film.

I think the lack of any use of the term in any of the article's references or external links further backs my position. The BBC source is the reputable reference and it does not use the term "filmizing" nor does it purport that there is any specific process used to make video look like film.

In fact the BBC source does use the term at the top of page 15, where it states 'The "filmised" MTF curve much more closely resembles that of film'. I would not support deleting the article. RichardRussell (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this article should be proposed for deletion, but before doing so, I'd like to gather a consensus from other editors and see if anyone can present any industry source that uses the term.

I'm going to give it a week and if I haven't heard any objections, I'll propose it for deletion. Filmnuts (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

New Deletion Nomination - Keep

Now that this has gone through another deletion nomination and the consensus was keep, this article needs some SERIOUS work. References, Copyediting, and fact checking. NickCochrane (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This article needs no work, it needs a deletion. It is obvious that all sorts of footage are post-processed to make up for shortcomings during principal photography. Why coin a new term for that, when actually nobody from the industry ever uses it? Maybe because wikipedia always knows best? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.120.0 (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Whether there are perceived negative reasons for the process, it still is a heavily used and notable process. The term wasn't coined by Wikipedia, but by reliable sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete articles. --Oakshade (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed minor change to article

The article begins by stating "Film look (also known as filmizing or film-look) is a process in which video images are augmented to appear to have been shot on film." One definition of "augment" is "to add something to (something) in order to improve or complete it."  There are many people who do not believe that this process in any way improves or "completes" a piece of video; many believe it actually degrades the quality of the video.  Given that Wikipedia is supposed to be objective and unbiased, I would suggest that another phrase be substituted for "video images are augmented." Perhaps a more neutral phrase such as "video images are altered in overall appearance." I would like to obtain the opinion of other editors before I make this change.
Richard27182 (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I might have been the person who added "augmented" to the article. I didn't mean to imply it "improved" the look of something. Most definition of "augment" that I've found say the word means "enlarge", "increase", "to make greater", etc.[1][2][3]. Those definitions would imply an incorrect application of the word. --Oakshade (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Oakshade.
I'll agree with you that you've made a good case that the word "augment" can also mean "enlarge," "increase," or "to make greater." But I would disagree that filmising does any of those things to video either! So I'm still not sure I see your point. But if you have a problem with my edit, I'll be happy to work out a compromise with you. Feel free to write back, but I may not be able to reply until sometime Saturday or Sunday.
Richard27182 (talk) 06:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying I agree that the word "augment" was misused.--Oakshade (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Oakshade.
   Thank you for writing back. And I apologize for misunderstanding what you were saying. Apparently we were basically in agreement all along.
   In case you haven't figured it out yet, I'm *very* new to all this. I'm just starting to learn Wiki code, what constitutes appropriate editing vs. inappropriate editing, working with other editors, etc. I'm trying to learn as much as I can from the tutorials, looking at examples, etc. But once in a while I just get stuck and need someone to answer a question for me. Would you mind if I occasionally turn to you for guidance in such situations?
Richard27182 (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure. If there's a question, you can pose it on my talk page.--Oakshade (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that.
Richard27182 (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposing a very brief comparison to VIDfire

The article begins with the sentence:

• Film look (also known as filmizing or film-look) is a process in which video images are altered in overall appearance to appear to have been shot on film. The process is usually electronic, although filmizing can sometimes occur as an unintentional by-product of some optical techniques, such as telerecording.

I would like to add the sentence:

• The effect is the exact opposite of a process called VidFIRE.

Is there anyone who would object to my doing this?
Richard27182 (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Since there have been no responses, I've gone ahead and made the change.  If anyone disagrees with my contribution, please discuss it here; we can probably work out a compromise.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

"reflist-talk" section

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Film look. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110517121208/http://www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/vidfire.htm to http://www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/vidfire.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure Derry Girls is filmised?

If it is then they have really done an amazing job to make me convinced that it's shot on actual film. 2A02:C7F:2417:A800:69F7:E4EB:F6B9:BA90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)