Please explain: Video vs. "organic"/cinematic look

[Neumann Films]

3 hours ago, mercer said:

This statement will always be the issue with this discussion. Motion cadence is a feeling a viewer or creator gets by watching the motion in the film. Unfortunately feelings are often indescribable. Just because motion cadence is not quantifiable doesn't mean it does not exist. 

Isn't the most likely culprit the sensor readout and rolling shutter artifacts?  No one has ever had a problem with the motion cadence of film and it seems like the other cameras that get a pass are the Alexa Studio (and Mini etc) and Blackmagic cameras.  The mechanical and global shutters are the key IMO.

We all think that motion artifacts only show up when you whip the camera around using a long lens but that has nothing to do with it, those artifacts are in every single frame of every shot, it's just less pronounced in, let's say, a locked off dialogue scene.

And that is the reason "motion cadence" is so hard to define, it's subtle.  It's not a "feeling" though, IMO.  It's all tied to the shutters.

 

[hyalinejim]

Also, compression artifacts will affect our perception of motion.

[Emanuel]

3 hours ago, mercer said:

This statement will always be the issue with this discussion. Motion cadence is a feeling a viewer or creator gets by watching the motion in the film. Unfortunately feelings are often indescribable. Just because motion cadence is not quantifiable doesn't mean it does not exist. 

As much as the Aristotle maxim 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts', a non-quantifiable premise doesn't necessarily rule out the gateway to quantify it. See above-posted. 24 frames are not the same as HFR.

E :-)

[mercer]

1 hour ago, Neumann Films said:

Isn't the most likely culprit the sensor readout and rolling shutter artifacts?  No one has ever had a problem with the motion cadence of film and it seems like the other cameras that get a pass are the Alexa Studio (and Mini etc) and Blackmagic cameras.  The mechanical and global shutters are the key IMO.

We all think that motion artifacts only show up when you whip the camera around using a long lens but that has nothing to do with it, those artifacts are in every single frame of every shot, it's just less pronounced in, let's say, a locked off dialogue scene.

And that is the reason "motion cadence" is so hard to define, it's subtle.  It's not a "feeling" though, IMO.  It's all tied to the shutters.

 

I also noticed more cinematic motion cadence with the BMPCC and GH4 shooting at true 24.00p with 180 degree shutter opposed to 23.976 and 1/50th shutter, especially using All-I.

[Neumann Films]

2 minutes ago, mercer said:

I also noticed more cinematic motion cadence with the BMPCC and GH4 shooting at true 24.00p with 180 degree shutter opposed to 23.976 and 1/50th shutter, especially using All-I.

Yup, exact shutter speed (1/48th) vs. 1/50th is likely part of the equation as well.  Codec as well.  I think they are all secondary to the shutter (readout and mechanical vs. Global) but I agree with you that they are likely part of the perception we have about motion.

[Emanuel]

37 minutes ago, mercer said:

I also noticed more cinematic motion cadence with the BMPCC and GH4 shooting at true 24.00p with 180 degree shutter opposed to 23.976 and 1/50th shutter, especially using All-I.

Right, so how isn't the motion cadence quantifiable?!

First off, frame rate is quantifiable.

Even a certain-chosen-one such as 24 frames per second is -- there's no one 24fps, 'several 24fps' apply. That is, let it alone when other variables pop up.

Cinematic outcome is a match of it.

[mercer]

50 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Right, so how isn't the motion cadence quantifiable?!

First off, frame rate is quantifiable.

Even a certain-chosen-one such as 24 frames per second is -- there's no one 24fps, 'several 24fps' apply. That is, let it alone when other variables pop up.

Cinematic outcome is a match of it.

I think when the original question was asked with the word quantifiable used in the question, Viet was looking for a link to proof, and I'm not sure that exists. Not to mention what I or you or Luke thinks is cinematic or what constitutes cinematic motion cadence is ultimately subjective because somebody else could comment that they believe VHS footage from a 1986 JVC camcorder is cinematic and the question then becomes... are they wrong? I believe so, but cinematic is an unquantifiable word that could mean one thing to you, another to me and yet another to Viet.

[Emanuel]

29 minutes ago, mercer said:

I think when the original question was asked with the word quantifiable used in the question, Viet was looking for a link to proof, and I'm not sure that exists. Not to mention what I or you or Luke thinks is cinematic or what constitutes cinematic motion cadence is ultimately subjective because somebody else could comment that they believe VHS footage from a 1986 JVC camcorder is cinematic and the question then becomes... are they wrong? I believe so, but cinematic is an unquantifiable word that could mean one thing to you, another to me and yet another to Viet.

Sure, I concur. I just don't think the opposite is not possible to coexist as much as a few people want the proof of it à la Saint Thomas. But, if faith can be subjective, 'the big concept' cinematic goes beyond because can be quantifiable by numbers. The evaluation of them is its subjective part.

“The opposite of a great truth is also true.” ~ Niels Bohr

[Emanuel]

2 hours ago, Neumann Films said:

And that is the reason "motion cadence" is so hard to define, it's subtle.  It's not a "feeling" though, IMO.  It's all tied to the shutters.

 

Right :-)

[JazzBox]

There is something in big production movies, especially in american comedies, that to me it is "cinema" at first sight, at least in my definition of "classic" cinema.
I don't really know what it is: of course it is a sum of great actors, great directors, great DOP, amazing locations, set design and costumes, great audio, wonderful camera with great DR and colors... 

But there is something "magical" that to my eyes is not really understandable: sometime it seems like a subtle slow motion - I'm not talking about 24p/180° - I mean like the movements are different from my footage. 

I thought a lot about it: maybe it is something about reducing sharpening/resolution and the color grading? Maybe it is the choice of framing with longer lens and letting the subject floating on the scene? But movies like Birdman are super cinematic and they have not a shallow DOF...  And I can see this difference in movies shot with the same "cheap" cameras or dslr that are videoish in smaller production such as music video... 
I mean "La Vie d'Adèle" (Blue Is the Warmest Colour) is shot with a Canon C300, not an ARRI. And it has this magic "motion". I don't really understand what it is... For sure I can shoot 24p 180° with Lumix, Canon, BlackMagic and my footage is nice, but I am not able to reproduce that magic motion I see in the movies.

If you have any suggestion, please share it  

[Emanuel]

1 hour ago, JazzBox said:

There is something in big production movies, especially in american comedies, that to me it is "cinema" at first sight, at least in my definition of "classic" cinema.
I don't really know what it is: of course it is a sum of great actors, great directors, great DOP, amazing locations, set design and costumes, great audio, wonderful camera with great DR and colors... 

But there is something "magical" that to my eyes is not really understandable: sometime it seems like a subtle slow motion - I'm not talking about 24p/180° - I mean like the movements are different from my footage. 

I thought a lot about it: maybe it is something about reducing sharpening/resolution and the color grading? Maybe it is the choice of framing with longer lens and letting the subject floating on the scene? But movies like Birdman are super cinematic and they have not a shallow DOF...  And I can see this difference in movies shot with the same "cheap" cameras or dslr that are videoish in smaller production such as music video... 
I mean "La Vie d'Adèle" (Blue Is the Warmest Colour) is shot with a Canon C300, not an ARRI. And it has this magic "motion". I don't really understand what it is... For sure I can shoot 24p 180° with Lumix, Canon, BlackMagic and my footage is nice, but I am not able to reproduce that magic motion I see in the movies.

If you have any suggestion, please share it  

You know Simo, as someone said, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts... ; )

Saluti e Buon Anno,

E :-)

[sam]

1 hour ago, JazzBox said:

But movies like Birdman....
If you have any suggestion, please share it  

Maybe a film out? I believe this was done with Birdman....or on lower budget films maybe a subtle simulated gateweave with a touch of motionblur applied pre grain might help?   

[Emanuel]

Post production can help indeed.

[John Brawley]

On 16/01/2017 at 6:57 AM, hyalinejim said:

Saw this reposted on dvxuser the other day and found it absolutely fascinating:

Film v Alexa:
http://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/

Background:
https://storify.com/tvaziri/steve-yedlin

Philosophical implications:
http://www.yedlin.net/160105_edit.html

In a similar vein a few years ago I did something similar.

https://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/posted-available-light-tests-are-finally-online/

In my view it's lighting, lensing and staging followed by dynamic range and high bit depth.

JB

 

[tupp]

2 hours ago, John Brawley said:

In my view it's lighting, lensing and staging followed by dynamic range and high bit depth

I don't think that's it.  It is important to differentiate between what looks "filmic"/"cinematic" and what looks like it was shot with film.

 

Consider this home movie and this home movie.  In regards to lighting, lensing and staging, there is nothing particularly filmic/cinematic about these home movies, but both of them were unmistakeably shot on film.

 

Also, the dynamic range of the stock was probably equivalent to a 7 1/2 stop or less capture range.  Just before digital took over, negative stock was generally rated at only 7 1/2 to 8 1/2 stops capture range, with normal processing.  So, the technical capture range of today's pro and prosumer cameras is greater than film stocks.

 

Furthermore, those home movies are channeled through 8-bit, YouTube pipes, so the bit depth of what we are viewing is only 8-bits, yet the footage is obviously captured on film.

 

It's something else... a combination of variables that can be quantified for the most part.  The Filmlook people and Eddie Barber (with his Vilm camera) were early pioneers in making video look like film, and they evidently did a thorough analysis of the variables involved.  I never used Filmlook but I did shoot with the Vilm camera, and I was able to glean a little on how it is done.

[cantsin]

The issues of "video vs. film" and "video look vs. [organic] cinema look" always get mixed up. (In the case of the vintage 8mm home movies, it's mostly color rendition, maybe highlight roll-off but mostly analog film/projection artefacts, including grain, splotches, jitter, gate weaving, that tell that something has been shot on film).

If we stick to the original subject of this thread, then the difference between video and cinema look was most clear in the miniDV era, because you had:

• NTSC/PAL resolution vs. higher film resolution (even in 16mm)
• interlaced images vs. progressive images
• 30fps or 60fps interlaced vs. 24p
• small sensors with infinite DoF vs. large chips/film surfaces with shallow DoF (when desired)
• everything in focus/autofocus vs. focus pulls
• auto-exposure (with auto-iris) vs. manual exposure (with constant aperture)
• 4:2:0 8bit vs. deep color
• high compression with artefacts vs. low or no compression with no visible artefacts
• low dynamic range (cut-off shadows, clipping highlights) vs. high dynamic range (shadow and highlight detail, smooth highlight roll-off)
• artificial sharpening (through increased edge contrast) vs. no artifical sharpening
• aggressive in-camera noise reduction vs. no noise reduction (or slight noise reduction in post)
• long-range zoom lenses with low optical quality vs. (mostly) high quality prime lensing
• motor zooming vs. camera movement (dolly, steadycam)
• available light/full-frontal light setup/harsh video light vs. soft light/light that models space/complex light setups
• ultra-fast-paced (strobic) editing or no editing vs. planned shots/staging and narrative editing
• in-camera audio vs. externally recorded audio + sound design.
• on-location shooting (with random colors) vs. set design (with a chosen color palette)
• in-camera default (Rec709) color vs. graded color
• default clothing vs. costume design
• no makeup (including specular highlights from skin) vs. film makeup

[JazzBox]

1 hour ago, tupp said:

I dIt's something else... a combination of variables that can be quantified for the most part.  The Filmlook people and Eddie Barber (with his Vilm camera) were early pioneers in making video look like film, and they evidently did a thorough analysis of the variables involved.  I never used Filmlook but I did shoot with the Vilm camera, and I was able to glean a little on how it is done.

I think that a lot of film look has to searched here (after shooting with proper light, framing, camera, lenses, actors, locations etc...).

What do they do make video look filmic?
 

9 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Post production can help indeed.

What kind interventions are important for achieving that look? What kind of grading and encoding?  
 

[John Brawley]

3 hours ago, tupp said:

I don't think that's it.  It is important to differentiate between what looks "filmic"/"cinematic" and what looks like it was shot with film.

 

Consider this home movie and this home movie.  In regards to lighting, lensing and staging, there is nothing particularly filmic/cinematic about these home movies, but both of them were unmistakeably shot on film.

Yes but are you wanting something to look like it's shot on film or to look cinematic.

Those are different goals in my view.  Seinfeld was shot on 35mm.  But it's not cinematic.

By pointing to lensing, lighting and staging, I was trying to say indirectly it's not really the "camera" or the film look recipe you have in post.  All that stuff happens before the image is captured.  It's mise en scene.  It's an important part of these discussions that always seems to get left out.

The tech stuff can help, but in my view, the objects you shoot, the lens you choose to shoot them with, where you put the camera and how you light them and how those elements iteract all matter a lot more than any magic bullet (pun intended) you think you can have in post to emulate that look.  And in order for the post film look recipes to work, you need a camera with high dynamic range and high bit depth. Which is why I mention those elements next.  Even when you have a scene that appears to have low DR, film has a way of rolling off highlights that you can emulate if you have the DR to do it.  So you take your 14 stop original, crush it to fit into the 8 stop TV you're looking at and jam the extra stops into the highlights to give you a softer roll off.  And in swinging the grade around a high bit depth stops the image from breaking down and looking blocky and digital.

Film has always been not that great by any technical measure, but it's always something we try to emulate.  So far I haven't seen anything that matches the way grain size changes with exposure though for example.  Film grain size gets tends to get smaller or tighter as it goes towards clipping and larger when it's underexposed. In the same image you have different sized grain depending on where it sits on the exposure curve.   That's hard to emulate in an image in a way that's realistic (as a match) because we're often mapping a much higher DR from the camera to a lower display DR.

The colour fidelity is also something that's hard to describe.  No one ever publishes the colour response of their sensors, but film still has the edge. And yeah, just because they have a file that's labeled REC 2020 doesn't mean that file has 2020 worth of info.  Again a higher bit depth image means you can stretch the colour information out a bit before it breaks down.

You're also confusing display technology with capture technology. 

Just because you tube displays in 8 bit 264, doesn't mean that's all you need for capture.  SD tv for many years had a mix of 35mm and electronic cameras.  There was always an easy distinction to make on the camera acquisition despite the fact the resolution was the same for both acquisition technologies.  Super-sampling has been happening since the beginning and is always going to trickle down to lessor display mediums.  Otherwise you'd be happy with what your iPhone shoots right ?  Don't fall for that trick. Compression factors here too in this, but this is a different conversation.

JB

 

 

[kidzrevil]

Dont worry about. Half the people screaming about video vs organic look don't know what they mean by it neither lollllll ! Find an aesthetic you like and work on making it better

[Emanuel]

14 hours ago, JazzBox said:

I think that a lot of film look has to searched here (after shooting with proper light, framing, camera, lenses, actors, locations etc...).

What do they do make video look filmic?
 

What kind interventions are important for achieving that look? What kind of grading and encoding?  
 

Like cooking, need to bake the footage ; ) Like love, a plant needs lot of care. Like life, stomach won't fill up with water nor alcohol all the time. Neither love. Filmmaking is not love making but certain rules apply ;-)

Sorry for so strikingly technical reply... :-))