I've noticed that while watching the "Coming Attractions" previews on DVDs anything that looks like it was shot on video automatically gets bumped down on my "have to see this" list. Why is that? Growing up, as I did, in the age where home video technology first became available, I was both fascinated and put off by it. On the one hand it meant that anybody could now make movies, but on the other, they all looked very different than what was coming out of Hollywood - they looked cheap. Over the years, video technology has improved dramatically from the old VHS camcorders with their low resolution and low dynamic range. Today, even the most inexpensive HD camcorders are capable of producing very good images. But there's still something subconscious that makes many people prefer the look of film.

Differences Between Film and Video

When we look at something and think "shot on video" what is it that we're noticing? The differences between film and video used to be a lot greater - specifically in terms of the much greater dynamic range and resolution that film could capture. Over the past few years these have largely gone away and, in many ways, digital may actually be superior to film (though we can leave that battle to the Videomaker forum). What remains, though, is that most consumer camcorders have a very small CCD compared to the 35mm sensor which might have as much as seven times the surface area - this has a very real impact on the depth of field, dynamic range, and the camera's low light sensitivity.

Blockbusters Shot on Video

Film has a lot of unenviable qualities - firstly, it's expensive. Remember how much it cost to buy and develop a roll of 35mm film? In a movie camera, that's one second. Multiply that by two hours, multiple takes, positives made from your negatives and even the most miserly shooting will cost you thousands and thousands of dollars. Film's second big drawback is that you can't see it right away. You don't know if your shot was in focus, what was going on in the background, any number of things that would make you want to re-shoot a scene. For these reasons, Hollywood has been very interested in figuring out how to shoot on video.

Commercially successful movies like Benjamin Button, Star Wars episodes 2 and 3 and Collateral were shot digitally and in 2009, Anthony Dod Mantle won a "best cinematographer" Oscar for Slumdog Millionare which was made up of 60% digital video. For the most part, these movies are using ultra high end cameras, like the Sony CineAlta line of camcorders or the Red One which will set you back $17,500 for the body alone, but other successful movies, like Open Water, were shot on prosumer equipment and put through filters to make it look more film like.