the DV Aesthetic?

I'm exceedingly guilty of shooting it only for lack of film stock; in other words, shooting it as if it were film. Deadroom is both the worst and the best example of this: the worst, because we didn't take advantage of a single aesthetic opportunity the format provided - only the economic ones; the best, because we understood the technology enough that we were able to play within, or just barely outside of, the lines

-- David Lowery, comments on how he felt he didn't take 'advantage' of the 'DV aesthetic' when doing his dv-feature, Deadroom. Whatever the hell that means.

As I wrote on David' Blog (tidied up here though)

"shooting it [DV] as if it were film"

You say that like its a bad thing...

"Sorry guys, we are worried too much about composition and lighting and mise en scene and y'know, I really think we should just be more DV about the whole thing".

I mean, there are some obviously technical differences between DV and 35mm, particularly in stop latitude [which is probably the most important aspect], but the principles of good cinematography still apply.

Often, when I hear about people talking about the "DV Aesthetic" I think they're really just looking for an excuse to shoot shit cause, frankly, making stuff look good is a lot of hard work on ANY format.

I mean, honestly, when you talk about the dv aesthetic and its 'aesthetic opportunities' what are you really referring to? I tend to think of it as grainy, badly lit, handheld, pseudo-realism... but I don't think of that as an aesthetic opportunity, because its achievable with *any* format. But I'm willing to hear other opinions...

Matt, over at esoteric rabbit also raises the notion of the DV aesthetic.

Just what is this damn DV aesthetic every babbles on about?

Its something I'm very curious about, cause I honestly can't think of a situation where if I can afford to bump up to HD or film (or even to digibeta/pro50), where I'd chose to shoot on DV for aesthetic reasons. I may chose it for logistical reasons or creative reasons (working with actors, shooting long takes), but I don't think I'd ever shoot DV cause I like the fucking look of it... cause I don't! Even the Orphanage, which made their reputation by working with DV, shoot with higher end formats like the Viper now because they can afford it. They learnt how to make DV look good, but boy, wouldn't you just rather work with 10bit 4:4:4 log files? :)

Often the reason that film productions look great [and remember, not all of them do - and its because the ones that don't ignore this] are because of the attitude and skill brought to the production by the crew. With video, people what for things to happen; with film, you make it happen. A good crew shooting film is going to understand focal lengths and exposure and depth of field and composition and framing and lighting ratios and mise en scene and coverage. It looks good cause they know how to make stuff look good. Often people shooting DV don't even understand exposure, yet alone focal lengths. ("What's a 25mm?" The length of your penis? Mwahahaha") Hell, the Orphanage made DV look shit hot cause they seriously understand images.

Anyway, I don't view shooting on DV, HD or Film as any different. Here's a post I made over at 2-pop when discussing books on DV cinematography:

Everything you say is true. DV has a very short latitude, greater depth of field, a linear response curve, awful highlights, and less resolution.

The question is, do these aspects of DV CHANGE what the foundations of good image-making? No.

Do they change the foundations of photographic principles? No.

In that way, shooting on film and on DV are the same.

Once you understand the foundations of photography then you can apply them to ANY photographic tool. Thats why I think the great cinematography books are still applicable to DV - they teach you why good photography is good photography. Once you learn that, then you just need to learn how to apply it to a different tool.

Film DoPs have to light differently for different films stocks - 50D reversal vs. 500T negative handles VERY differently. Yet these guys don't run out and buy books on each individual film stock. They shoot tests, they talk to other DoPs, they learn the tool and how it handles, but they don't need to learn how to drive it again.

That said, there's lots of ways you can make DV better. IMNSHO, the problem with books which focus on how to make DV look good don't give you reasons or context as to why you should use those techniques. Understanding the 'why' is very important IMNSHO.

The DoP I work with still occasionally pulls out his light meter when shooting video just to check his fill to key ratios.

As for shooting DV with closeups... yes, thats true. The lack of resolution with DV does mean that closeups work better.... but if you shoot a whole movie with closeups, then why bother projecting it at all? Its just a bad TV soap. DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE STORY. Have the guts to say what you want how you want, regardless of whether its 'good' photography or not. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is an AMAZING film in this regard. Pure guts.

... and hey, asking dumb questions is what its all about. I still ask dumb questions (not that I'm an old school old timer, just a guy with a big mouth).

Stu [that's me] tips for shooting DV:

- Expose for skin tones. Ultimately, skin tones are the hardest things to colour correct with DV. They will break up in terms of saturation and detail if you push them around. If you're shooting stuff with people in it, which is most of what we shoot, then they will be the focus of the frame... and other stuff can fall by the wayside.

- Lighting ratio. 1 stop above and 2 stop below is a good rule of thumb.

- I like shooting with some diffusion, usually black promists - but white promists are also good. They'll soften the sharpness of video (its too sharp imnsho), lower the contrast (helping you keep your latitude), and also help blow out your highlights a little more nicely.

- Learn how to grade like the boys on the Da Vinci do. All that a Da Vinci has on a FCP system is real time. If you're doing this for yourself, then time don't mean nothing.

- I always desaturate DV, cause I hate the chroma of it. I tend to crush the blacks a little and then push up my midtones. In AE, I'll draw an S-Curve.

- Shoot digital stills and grade them in photoshope for practice

- Depth of field is a function of focal length and f-stop. Pick an f-stop and STICK TO IT. I tend to shoot at F2. Use ND and control your lights to keep the exposure consistent, but never touch the aperture.

- Shoot with long lenses. Learn about focal length and how they impact visual relationships. Bruce Block's the visual story is very good on this point.

- Personally, I prefer soft light for video and film... but I really think it helps the highlight problems of video. Kino-flos and other fluroscent lights are your friends. Don't be afraid to diffuse them even more.

- ALWAYS keep an eye for great images... when you find em (in magazines, in commercials, in comics, on the TV, on billboards, in feature films) deconstruct them. work out WHY they affect the way they do. look for the detail, cause its the detail that matters.

- Oh, yeah.... production design is very very very important. Get a good art director and work with them to control the tones of a scene and costumes and props and everything. Gordon Willis said it best, when he said you gotta art direct everything like your shooting for black and white.

- Ignore everything I've said if it compromises the story.

Thats it thats far.

Good luck. Looking forward to hearing some other people's tips

Differing opinions are encouraged; post em here!

Update: Perhaps it IS the crappy pseudo realism of DV that people are after... but why DV? Why not Hi8 or Pixelvision [beautiful]? Or BetaSP?