Why do images captured on celluloid have a sort of "glossy look" when well-mastered dv-footage doesn't? - Page 1

This is one of those questions where the gut reaction is often "doh; isn't it obvious?" but then, if you think about it, it's actually quite hard to answer. It's a bit like asking

"why do objects fall towards the ground?"

"doh, it's gravity, stupid"

"yes, I know that. But how does gravity work?"

"um, well, massive objects attract other massive objects"

"yes, but how? How is gravity mediated? What's the mechanism by which massive objects attract each other?"

"um, oh... I don't know".

In other words, it's a question which feels obvious because we experience the phenomenon every day but it's actually quite hard to answer.

Well, OK... Maybe asking why film looks glossier than DV is easier than asking how gravity is mediated, but you get the idea.

Anyway, having offered this long-winded disclaimer, I'll try to answer the question.

For the sake of this argument, let's just compare the formats from the imager backwards. Which is a clumsy way of saying that we're assuming the lenses, filtration and lighting are constants. Some thoughts on what makes film look "glossier" than DV:

1) First, let's define "glossy". Examples of "glossy" cinematography would be things like Friends, 24, Ocean's Eleven, Mr & Mrs Smith. "Glossy", to me, means:

1.1) Flattering. Everyone looks sexy. No facial blemishes.

1.2) Rich, natural looking, warm colours. Skin tones look tanned and attractive. No one looks pasty. Skies look luscious and grass looks vivid.

1.3) Deep, rich blacks and elegantly handled highlights.

1.4) Shallow depth of field to separate the actors from the background, making them stand out even more.

1.5) Faces look interesting and well "modelled".

(delicious | digg | reddit | technorati)