Differnce between film and video

[StarThorn]

I was watching a review on a movie. The guy started complaining about it being shot in video vs film.

What is the difference?


PS. I bought con air on blu ray and I notice random little white flakes will appear for a split second. Does this mean it is video?

[agraham8]

To my knowledge, the main difference between video and film is that video is shot at 30fps? and film is shot at 24fps. Most people would say that 30fps means less realistic, smoother motion. Also, there'd be no grain or other filmic elements in video.

If a film is shot in video, it's usually done using one of the newer digital 4k cameras, which would also have a wider dynamic range than film, and it would be noticeable to those that look for that sort of thing. Obviously, having a film shot on video means no film transfer times and easier editing, etc..

I'm pretty sure I'm in the clear here, but I'm not an expert, it's just what I've read.

[OpticDisc]

Originally Posted by agraham8

To my knowledge, the main difference between video and film is that video is shot at 30fps? and film is shot at 24fps. Most people would say that 30fps means less realistic, smoother motion. Also, there'd be no grain or other filmic elements in video.

Video can be shot at 24fps. Film has a characteristic grain structure, which many people view positively, either for aesthetic reasons or because it has become associated with the look of 'real' movies. Different film stocks have different grain, and cinematographers may use this for artistic effect.
Digitally acquired footage lacks this grain structure. Electronic noise is sometimes visible in digitally acquired footage, particularly in dark areas of an image or when footage was shot in low lighting conditions and gain was used. Some people believe such noise is a workable aesthetic substitute for film grain, while others believe it has a harsher look that detracts from the image.

Originally Posted by agraham8

If a film is shot in video, it's usually done using one of the newer digital 4k cameras, which would also have a wider dynamic range than film

The sensors in most high-end digital video cameras have less exposure latitude (dynamic range) than modern motion picture film stocks. In particular, they tend to 'blow out' highlights, losing detail in very bright parts of the image. If highlight detail is lost, it is impossible to recapture in post-production.

[comixguru]

Originally Posted by agraham8

To my knowledge, the main difference between video and film is that video is shot at 30fps? and film is shot at 24fps. Most people would say that 30fps means less realistic, smoother motion. Also, there'd be no grain or other filmic elements in video.

If a film is shot in video, it's usually done using one of the newer digital 4k cameras, which would also have a wider dynamic range than film, and it would be noticeable to those that look for that sort of thing. Obviously, having a film shot on video means no film transfer times and easier editing, etc..

I'm pretty sure I'm in the clear here, but I'm not an expert, it's just what I've read.

You're right. But recent hidef technology has video cameras recording at 24 fps to mimic a more film-like presentation. Most effects on film can be achieved using digital effects on high def digital files. The lines are blurring more and more each day. Video noise in dark scenes, taken and put on film stock for projection... can end up looking a lot like grain, if you ask me. (I'm sure experts with hawk eye vision and still frames will scream foul!)

Fully digital productions still get put on film for most final projection -- lending one last way to blur video into film.

These new cameras can be used in many ways. Some have used them to acheive film-like result, others video-like. Zodiac was shot largely using the Thomson VIPER camera and still has, I feel, a very film-like presentation. The same camera was used for Collateral and Miami Vice, though, and those are clearly video.

This wiki article is a pretty good starting point on the digital side of things.

-comix

[comixguru]

Originally Posted by OpticDisc

Video can be shot at 24fps. Film has a characteristic grain structure, which many people view positively, either for aesthetic reasons or because it has become associated with the look of 'real' movies. Different film stocks have different grain, and cinematographers may use this for artistic effect.
Digitally acquired footage lacks this grain structure. Electronic noise is sometimes visible in digitally acquired footage, particularly in dark areas of an image or when footage was shot in low lighting conditions and gain was used. Some people believe such noise is a workable aesthetic substitute for film grain, while others believe it has a harsher look that detracts from the image.



The sensors in most high-end digital video cameras have less exposure latitude (dynamic range) than modern motion picture film stocks. In particular, they tend to 'blow out' highlights, losing detail in very bright parts of the image. If highlight detail is lost, it is impossible to recapture in post-production.

Way to copy and paste Wikis, dude.

-comix

[StarThorn]

so its like old people who like record players over cd's. They want to hear the crackling sound (grain).


what about the white flakes on con air blu ray?

[comixguru]

Originally Posted by StarThorn

so its like old people who like record players over cd's. They want to hear the crackling sound (grain).


what about the white flakes on con air blu ray?

I've not seen any reports of anything odd about this transfer.

Maybe this is HDMI sparklies? People report problems with some HDMI cables or configurations that go away with different (presumably better) cables or direct connections to the display (as opposed to passing the HDMI through a receiver).

-comix

[Josh Z]

Originally Posted by StarThorn

so its like old people who like record players over cd's. They want to hear the crackling sound (grain).

No, it's more like people wanting to look at a painting rather than a photograph, or vice versa. Neither one is necessarily "better" than the other. They're intended for different uses.

Film and video have inherently different 'looks'. Compare most theatrical movies to soap operas or the evening news, and you'll notice right away that they don't look like one another. The line is blurring, but the difference is still obvious.

Those "flakes" you describe on Con Air are most likely dirt or scratches that accumulated on the film elements that Disney used for the transfer. I doubt they put much effort into a release like this.

Like the vast majority of theatrical movies, Con Air was shot on 35mm film stock.