Well, why? I understand the difference between film and video (mostly) - video is “interlaced” (whatever that means) and runs at 30 frames per second, while film isn’t interlaced and runs at 24 frames per second. Still, there has to be more going on here - why do they look so different?
Film tends to look “softer” and more gauzy, while video has a more stark, realistic picture.
Does anyone have a link to an A/B comparison between the same footage, shot on film and then on video? Why do they look different?
Do a search, there are lots of past threads on this.
Film looks softer partly because of, as you said, the slower frame rate and the lack of interlacing. Interlacing means that video is actually 60 fields per second (a field being either every odd or even line of a whole screen, i.e. half). Both of these make movement on video look clearer and sort of strobe-like (less movement ‘blur’) than on film.
Film also looks softer because it has a much greater range of contrast and color. Video looks harser (more contrasting and starker, more primary-ish colors).
The Larry Sanders Show on HBO would cut between both. When you were watching the ‘fictional’ talk show (i.e. Larry Sanders) it was videotape, When you were watching the real HBO series (i.e. Garry Shandling) it was filmed.
Monty Python would be shot on video for in the studio bits and film when they went on location. It’s quite a startling difference.
Of course, an Arri 16BL was a lot more portable than the video equipment they had back in 1969/70.
Spike Lee’s “Bamboozled” also employed this to great effect. Most of the movie was shot on consumer, handheld DV cameras, but when the “TV Show” was being shown, those segments were shot on film.