# Visual difference -- video vs. film **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 31, 2008, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/visual-difference-video-vs-film/479418 "2008-12-31T23:25:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Ximenean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/aca169/32.png) [@Ximenean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ximenean)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2009, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/visual-difference-video-vs-film/479418/21 "2009-01-02T00:16:40Z")
> [@jimpatro](#): > > The biggest difference between “film look” and “video look” is in the frame rate. Absolutely. A lot of old TV shows were recorded in film form, using a process called telerecording or Kinescope whereby 60- or 50 field-per-second interlaced video was captured to film. If these recordings are played back, they look more like film than video. But recent innovations allow us to take a film telerecording and convert it back to interlaced, by interpolating the in-between fields. The result looks much more like the original video. [VidFIRE](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VidFIRE) is one such technique. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2009, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/visual-difference-video-vs-film/479418/22 "2009-01-02T00:29:24Z")
> [@jimpatro](#): > > I’ve got a K-3. Love that little camera. I’ve shot a few projects with the DVX. That’s a really impressive camera. I really like the DVX. I wouldn’t mind an HD though. i love the K-3 just because it’s so very Russian. Built like a tank, and really simple. The Zenit lens made some good pictures too, even on a hazy day. What I don’t like is that it’s not as easy to wind as a Bolex (and I have Tobin motors for them) and it can be a little finicky about film stock. With the other, better, cameras I have I should sell the K-3. But it’s just too nifty. I’ll probably sell the backup K-3 though. ---
**Author:** ![jimpatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimpatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimpatro)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2009, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/visual-difference-video-vs-film/479418/23 "2009-01-02T00:44:35Z")
The brown box with the cyrillic writing is really cool. I’m gonna have to pull it out to display in my new office. ---
**Author:** ![BJMoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5fc32e/32.png) [@BJMoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BJMoose)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2009, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/visual-difference-video-vs-film/479418/24 "2009-01-02T02:02:05Z")
> [@jimpatro](#): > > The biggest difference between “film look” and “video look” is in the frame rate. As mentioned before, film generally is shot and projected at 24 frames per second. Video is essentially 60 frames per second. Video cameras shooting “progressive” mode can emulate the film look by shooting 24 frames. Close but not exactly a film replacement. I think you may be right. I recall, years ago, shuttling through a film I had recorded on the Betamax and the picture took on something of a “video look”. > [@jimpatro](#): > > Yep, definitely the frame rate. Years ago I was fiddling with some video footage run through a device which could freeze frames and alter the speed of playback. I got it to skip every other frame (actually field, which is a frame broken into halves of odd and even scan lines) and voila “film look”. Although at 30 frames rather than 24 but still pretty close. Everyone I showed it to thought it was 16mm film. You’ve basically described the process used to make video look like film - a combination of strobing, as it’s called, and fiddling with the color saturation level. Some programs are actually produced this way (can’t think of any - don’t watch much TV anymore; some of the stuff on the Food Channel might be done this way). The technique generally works, but occasionally looks like something between film and video. ---
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2009, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/visual-difference-video-vs-film/479418/25 "2009-01-02T07:23:37Z")
The most notable artifact that the difference in frame rates causes is the lack of ‘motion blur’ in video. With film shooting at only 24fps even slow things like people walking or the camera panning causes it to have a very noticeably smooth motion blur to it, faster things like vehicles extremely so. But video’s much higher frame rate causes a very noticeable **lack** of motion blur, i.e. a more realistic and stark appearance. And because film came first, and because the vast majority of all filmed sequences are fictional rather than actual, we’ve come to equate it’s look as ‘fake’. Well, not really fake, but fictional, like the difference between a painted portrait (even a very technically precise one) versus a photograph. They followed the same path as well, i.e. paintings came first and were almost always more fanciful than precise. I recently bought one of the new digital camcorders that offers a 24fps mode and it most definitely makes footage look more ‘film-like’ merely thru the slower frame rate. Which is really cool, because before, services like FilmLook™ were way too expensive for amateur video! ---
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2009, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/visual-difference-video-vs-film/479418/26 "2009-01-02T07:35:36Z")
Oh, and in regards to the OP Twilight Zone eps, strangely, during these marathons I’ve often seen broadcasters show _both_ the original videotaped version and the (extremely crappier) kinescope version. In the same marathon! And speaking of marathons, where I live they showed a Honeymooners marathon. That show is rather unique in that the first series of episodes (the so-called ‘classic 39’) were both broadcast live with TV cameras and filmed _simultaneously_. Because Gleason knew that these scripts were the best, and because there was no practical videotaping system yet, he had the Electronicam system of TV/Film cameras custom made to preserve the eps for future broadcasts (don’t know if he thought that would include over 50 years in the future!) This is why the 39 are, visually, of such higher quality than the others, which were only saved kinescopes. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2009, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/visual-difference-video-vs-film/479418/27 "2009-01-02T08:47:48Z")
The musical _Oklahoma!_ (1954) was shot in two different formats: in Todd-AO, using a 65mm negative shot at 30 frames per second; and in CinemaScope, using a 35mm negative shot a 24 fps. The Todd-AO version starts to resemble color videotape, especially when the actors or the camera (or both) are moving. But really _pretty_ color videotape! ---
**Author:** ![BJMoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5fc32e/32.png) [@BJMoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BJMoose)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2009, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/visual-difference-video-vs-film/479418/28 "2009-01-02T15:42:50Z")
> [@Hail\_Ants](#): > > The most notable artifact that the difference in frame rates causes is the lack of ‘motion blur’ in video. With film shooting at only 24fps even slow things like people walking or the camera panning causes it to have a very noticeably smooth motion blur to it, faster things like vehicles extremely so. But video’s much higher frame rate causes a very noticeable **lack** of motion blur, i.e. a more realistic and stark appearance. > > * * * While there’s something to what you say[sup]1[/sup], blur is more a function of shutter speed than frame rate. There is certainly blurring in old video. The modern chip cameras usually have a “shutter” built in, and that can reduce blurring to essentially nothing. (Personally, it annoys the heck out of me when someone shoots video with the shutter set to 1/1000 of a second. The lack of blurring simply looks unnatural.) You can achieve the same thing with film if you’re willing to light the hell out of the scene and can use a shutter speed of 1/1000. > [@Hail\_Ants](#): > > Oh, and in regards to the OP Twilight Zone eps, strangely, during these marathons I’ve often seen broadcasters show _both_ the original videotaped version and the (extremely crappier) kinescope version. In the same marathon! > > And speaking of marathons, where I live they showed a Honeymooners marathon. That show is rather unique in that the first series of episodes (the so-called ‘classic 39’) were both broadcast live with TV cameras and filmed _simultaneously_. Because Gleason knew that these scripts were the best, and because there was no practical videotaping system yet, he had the Electronicam system of TV/Film cameras custom made to preserve the eps for future broadcasts (don’t know if he thought that would include over 50 years in the future!) This is why the 39 are, visually, of such higher quality than the others, which were only saved kinescopes. I’m rather doubtful about what you say about _Twilight Zone_. While I haven’t seen it since I was a kid (sucker used to give me nightmares), I’m fairly certain the original was shot on film, single camera style. If that was the case, then I’m baffled as to why anyone would make kinnys of the thing when it would have been much better to just make copies of the film. (That being said, I will concede the possibility that the first season or two was done live and I was too young to notice.) I saw part of a _Honeymooners_ episode yesterday and was surprised to see it was a film instead of a kinescope. Guess that explains it. (The video was noticably dark, but that may prove nothing more than that the engineer at WGN was too lazy to reach over and crank up the white level on the playback machine.) * * * 1. For the '84 or '88 Olympics NBC used a “Super Slo-Mo” system developed by Sony with its BetaCam equipment (professional version of BetaMax). It worked by recording at a high frame rate (60 fps or more, I forget), which reduced blurring. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2009, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/visual-difference-video-vs-film/479418/29 "2009-01-02T15:56:14Z")
Not an expert, but in reference to the Monty Python reference I remember the first time I ever noticed the film vs video phenomenon was during Tom Baker-era Doctor Who episodes. The contrast between interior (video) and exterior (film) shots was unmistakable. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2009, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/visual-difference-video-vs-film/479418/30 "2009-01-02T16:03:20Z")
> [@BJMoose](#): > > The modern chip cameras usually have a “shutter” built in, and that can reduce blurring to essentially nothing. (Personally, it annoys the heck out of me when someone shoots video with the shutter set to 1/1000 of a second. The lack of blurring simply looks unnatural.) Speaking of reducing blur to nothing, I posted [this video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Isi2cwJsp4) of a helicopter earlier. > [@BJMoose](#): > > You can achieve the same thing with film if you’re willing to light the hell out of the scene and can use a shutter speed of 1/1000. In _Three Kings_ (and I think _Saving Private Ryan_) they used a 45º shutter instead of the usual 180º shutter. Interesting effect, but quickly became overused in other films. > [@BJMoose](#): > > I’m rather doubtful about what you say about _Twilight Zone_. While I haven’t seen it since I was a kid (sucker used to give me nightmares), I’m fairly certain the original was shot on film, single camera style. If that was the case, then I’m baffled as to why anyone would make kinnys of the thing when it would have been much better to just make copies of the film. (That being said, I will concede the possibility that the first season or two was done live and I was too young to notice.) According to [this site](http://everything2.com/title/kinescope): > [@](#): > > Some of the reruns of The Twilight Zone on the Sci-Fi Channel are based on kinescope masters. Episodes that are in this format include “Patterns” and “Night of the Meek”. And [from here](http://www.tv.com/the-twilight-zone/the-lateness-of-the-hour/episode/12628/summary.html): > [@](#): > > The six videotaped episodes were originally shown on the network in videotape form, and later transferred to 16mm “kinescope” film when the series went into syndication in 1964. Not every local TV station had videotape facilities at the time, and CBS “kinnied” those episodes to make them compatible with the rest of the filmed episodes in the “package.” ---
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2009, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/visual-difference-video-vs-film/479418/31 "2009-01-02T18:06:22Z")
> [@BJMoose](#): > > I’m rather doubtful about what you say about _Twilight Zone_. While I haven’t seen it since I was a kid (sucker used to give me nightmares), I’m fairly certain the original was shot on film, single camera style. You misunderstand what I mean. There were only a few episodes of the original TZ shot on video. The last time I saw a SciFi Channel marathon they showed one of these as the original videotape, then a few hours later they showed _that same episode_ (the outstanding Night of the Meek BTW) but they ran the kinescope version of it instead. Just found it odd they would bother with the very shitty ‘fimed TV screen’ version. Maybe they figured that’s how most of us Gen-Xers remembered it from syndication. Just going from memory the videotaped ones were some of the best TZ episodes. Art Carney’s Night of the Meek as I mentioned, also the one with the rich family with all android servants, and the one where the used car dealer buys the haunted Model T that makes him tell the truth. I noticed that in these episodes, during the beginning the camera would pan over to Serling in one unbroken shot. IOW he was actually there on-set doing his monologue while in most (all?) of the filmed shows it was shot separately. Probably because editing video ‘in-post’ was more difficult (and expensive) back then. ---
**Author:** ![Histrion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/76d3ee/32.png) [@Histrion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Histrion)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2009, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/visual-difference-video-vs-film/479418/32 "2009-01-02T18:52:42Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Not an expert, but in reference to the Monty Python reference I remember the first time I ever noticed the film vs video phenomenon was during Tom Baker-era _Doctor Who_ episodes. The contrast between interior (video) and exterior (film) shots was unmistakable. The BBC refer to this - combining one-camera film shoots (on location) with multi-videocamera setups (in the studio) - as “piebald shooting.” It was common for a long time on many of their programs; I’m not sure if it’s still in use today. And, as previously noted, the Pythons poked fun at it on at least one occasion. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2009, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/visual-difference-video-vs-film/479418/33 "2009-01-02T23:07:17Z")
> [@BJMoose](#): > > I’m rather doubtful about what you say about _Twilight Zone_. While I haven’t seen it since I was a kid (sucker used to give me nightmares), I’m fairly certain the original was shot on film, single camera style. No, six episodes of the second season of _The Twilight Zone_ were shot with television cameras, onto videotape, as a budget-cutting measure. Some clips (keep watching after the filmed intros and establishing shots): • [The Lateness of the Hour](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImWCiJdWuiI) (1960). • [Long Distance Call](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIaH13Ud_-I) (1961). ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2009, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/visual-difference-video-vs-film/479418/34 "2009-01-03T00:48:44Z")
> [@jimpatro](#): > > Aaton for 16 and mostly Arri BLs for 35. Liking the Vision2 250D. Have you tried the Vision3, Johnny? But mostly shooting HD nowadays. Love the Varicam. Oh you poor dear. BL’s? Fortunately I only had to fly a BL - IV a few times on my Steadicam. ( Was once asked to use it in Low Mode, walking across the table in the boardroom made famous in the movie “Wall Street”. I said no. 😃 ) The BL - IV? It’s akin to having a Volkswagen Beetle on the rig. Aatons are just beautiful machines. Never shot Vision3. The Varicam makes veeery lovely images. Have you attended a VariCamp yet? Having spent some time with Jarred Land and the other guys at Red Digital One, I must say I’m a lot more enamored of the 4k image from Red than I am of the Varicam image. It’s not HD in the traditional sense, but it sure ain’t 35 !! Excellent answers to the OP, nothing to add directly to it. Well done ! Cartooniverse ---
**Author:** ![jimpatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimpatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimpatro)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2009, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/visual-difference-video-vs-film/479418/35 "2009-01-03T00:58:22Z")
Yeah, unforunately that’s the scope of my 35 experience. I’ve mostly shot Aatons on Steadicam. Haven’t done the VariCamp, I should arrange to. The Red does make pretty pictures. Haven’t shot with it yet, but I have heard the horror stories. Hopefully the bugs get worked out. Although I’d say that the images are worth the possible hiccups. Thanks, Cartooniverse. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2009, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/visual-difference-video-vs-film/479418/36 "2009-01-03T01:28:24Z")
A couple people mentioned that video is 60 fps. This is not correct. NTSC video has 30 frames per second. Each frame is divided into two interlaced fields, but they are not independent images, as they would be if you ran your film camera at 60 fps. And as anyone who has seen Douglas Trumbull’s Showscan system can tell you, there’s a world of difference between (real) 60 fps and 30 or 24. BTW, I’m relatively certain that the vast majority of filmed TV shows were shot at 30 fps instead of 24. I mean, why would you bother introducing the pull-down artifacts when you never intended to show the program theatrically? So the pull-down problem (which few people can detect anyway) wouldn’t be a visible difference in the appearance of a filmed TV show, as compared to one shot on tape. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2009, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/visual-difference-video-vs-film/479418/37 "2009-01-03T02:00:31Z")
> [@commasense](#): > > BTW, I’m relatively certain that the vast majority of filmed TV shows were shot at 30 fps instead of 24. I mean, why would you bother introducing the pull-down artifacts when you never intended to show the program theatrically? I’ve never heard that filmed TV shows, at least from the 1940s to the 1990s, were taken at anything but 24 fps, despite the 24/30 conversion necessary. ---
**Author:** ![BJMoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5fc32e/32.png) [@BJMoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BJMoose)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2009, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/visual-difference-video-vs-film/479418/38 "2009-01-03T15:44:29Z")
> [@Hail\_Ants](#): > > You misunderstand what I mean. There were only a few episodes of the original TZ shot on video. The last time I saw a SciFi Channel marathon they showed one of these as the original videotape, then a few hours later they showed _that same episode_ (the outstanding Night of the Meek BTW) but they ran the kinescope version of it instead. Just found it odd they would bother with the very shitty ‘fimed TV screen’ version. Maybe they figured that’s how most of us Gen-Xers remembered it from syndication. > > Just going from memory the videotaped ones were some of the best TZ episodes. Art Carney’s Night of the Meek as I mentioned, also the one with the rich family with all android servants, and the one where the used car dealer buys the haunted Model T that makes him tell the truth. I noticed that in these episodes, during the beginning the camera would pan over to Serling in one unbroken shot. IOW he was actually there on-set doing his monologue while in most (all?) of the filmed shows it was shot separately. Probably because editing video ‘in-post’ was more difficult (and expensive) back then. Well, I _did_ allow for the possibility that some of it had been shot on video. And it’s obvious you’ve seen it more recently (and more often) than I have. Anyway, **Johnny L.A.**'s last quote clears up the matter. Why they would still be playing both kinescope and videotape versions of the same episode, I cannot imagine. You’re right about post-production being a bitch in the early years of videotape. The only editing method was the old-fashioned one - cut and splice. **Walloon** : I’m rather confident that they started shooting (some) film intended for television at 30 fps rather early on. I can’t pull a hard cite from my rotting grey cells, but it seems I first read about this circa 1970. In any case, kinescopes certainly operated at 30 fps (and synchronized to the video source) to avoid various unpleasant artifacts. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2009, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/visual-difference-video-vs-film/479418/39 "2009-01-03T17:02:09Z")
So going by the attribution of the principal cause to frame rate, do I take it that if one were to shoot a static scene, once on video and then on film, with everything else being equal, the output on a television would look much the same? ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2009, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/visual-difference-video-vs-film/479418/40 "2009-01-03T18:26:41Z")
> [@BJMoose](#): > > In any case, kinescopes certainly operated at 30 fps (and synchronized to the video source) to avoid various unpleasant artifacts. Kinescope films were generally taken at 24 fps. How do I know? I researched and wrote the [Wikipedia article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinescope#Image_quality) about them. U.S. patent: [Device for recording television](http://www.google.com/patents?id=cT9mAAAAEBAJ) (1945). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/visual-difference-video-vs-film/479418.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/visual-difference-video-vs-film/479418.md?page=3)