How Many Stops of Dynamic Range Needed for Cinematic Look?

[kidzrevil]

6 minutes ago, ntblowz said:

This film shot on AF100 and with GH2 as bcam

 

Seriously ?! Wow. This was a fave of mine

[ntblowz]

2 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

Seriously ?! Wow. This was a fave of mine

yeah, the old thread back then

 

[IronFilm]

7 hours ago, kye said:

You assume that a good camera operator has control over their environment.  Try doing any documentary work outside in direct sunlight and it won't matter how good an operator you are - if your camera doesn't have enough DR you're going to be clipping highlights or crushing blacks or both at the same time in the same shot.

You can change your angles, and even locations. Heck, sometimes you might even have control over your timings too. 

 

7 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

As a doc director/producer/shooter I can agree with this...and also disagree with this.  A good shooter can and will find the best angle for light even in bad lighting situations.  Changing the perspective of a shot for better light is always an option.  It's not always easy, but that's part of the craft.  Making good cinematic decisions under the gun is doable.  So, you don't control the light, but you do control how the camera sees it.

Exactly!

[Gregormannschaft]

4 hours ago, kye said:

 

However, there are always situations where you have no control.  You have no control about where your vantage point is, if, for example, you are sitting in a packed moving vehicle shooting out the window (tour bus, helicopter, train, plane), or when you're at the zoo looking at the animals from the lookout that is only wide enough for a couple of people to stand in at the same time.  In a vehicle you get to control framing, and camera position within a space about maybe 50x50x50cm perhaps, but that's it.  
Sometimes you don't have control about where the subject is, kids running in the park in-between areas of full sun and full shade (and the full shade is relatively dark because vegetation is pretty good at absorbing light).  

My approach to these situations where you are restricted about where you can shoot from, or the lighting on the subject you're shooting is two-fold:
1) Just film a lot - "spray and pray" as it's called.  This is partly valid as the more you film the more likely you are to get a great moment, but it also means that when you're in the edit room you are able to replace great content that has unusable levels with other great content that does have useable levels.
2) Understand that you are not always going to get the shot from the best angle - either by lack of options, lack of skill, or both - and just buy a camera with more DR.  This is what I am talking about here.

If your video is about your families trip to the park, and your kid is happiest when they're running, and the bad lighting was where they were running before everyone sat down to ate and then the kids all fell asleep, good luck in the edit suite looking at one of the nicest pieces of footage you have from the outing and trying to decide between the best content and it not being noisy or clipped all to hell.

I'm not really sure what you're arguing for here. Making a video of your family's trip to the park, it isn't really essential that every shot is perfectly exposed is it? In most documentaries there's a natural tolerance of bad exposure, framing, and jerky camera movements right? Because a lot of time they aren't detracting from the story. A lot of the time they add to it, in fact.

[kye]

1 hour ago, Gregormannschaft said:

I'm not really sure what you're arguing for here. Making a video of your family's trip to the park, it isn't really essential that every shot is perfectly exposed is it? In most documentaries there's a natural tolerance of bad exposure, framing, and jerky camera movements right? Because a lot of time they aren't detracting from the story. A lot of the time they add to it, in fact.

I'm arguing that having a camera with higher DR is worthwhile and the answer isn't always to just work around the limitations of your camera.

I've been around enough narrative, documentary, ENG and other types of shooting to realise that what I'm trying to do is at the pointy-end of making the best of situations you may have almost no control over.

Most of the time on here I'll talk about something valuable to me and someone will say that I don't need it and all I have to do is change something I don't have control over but they assume everyone does.

[Gregormannschaft]

2 minutes ago, kye said:

I'm arguing that having a camera with higher DR is worthwhile and the answer isn't always to just work around the limitations of your camera.

I've been around enough narrative, documentary, ENG and other types of shooting to realise that what I'm trying to do is at the pointy-end of making the best of situations you may have almost no control over.

Most of the time on here I'll talk about something valuable to me and someone will say that I don't need it and all I have to do is change something I don't have control over but they assume everyone does.

I get where you're coming from, and no one can argue against having more DR to play with, zero rolling shutter and beautiful colours...but, to play devil's advocate, no one is going to look at slightly blown out highlights in an otherwise important scene for a doc or ENG piece and say, 'Ah shame, this would have been much more effective with those highlights and more shadow detail'. Nice to have, but not critical. 

[kye]

51 minutes ago, Gregormannschaft said:

I get where you're coming from, and no one can argue against having more DR to play with, zero rolling shutter and beautiful colours...but, to play devil's advocate, no one is going to look at slightly blown out highlights in an otherwise important scene for a doc or ENG piece and say, 'Ah shame, this would have been much more effective with those highlights and more shadow detail'. Nice to have, but not critical. 

You're right about people not being that critical.  My family are already saying that my films look like videos from the tourist bureau, but I can see that they're not and I guess I am that critical.  

Early on I shot a video of a family holiday on a point-and-shoot and had it on the 50p mode, which I only later discovered didn't record sound (oops!).  The result was a wonderful video half-full of slow-motion shots of the kids smiling and running around with a full music soundtrack - great stuff and still perhaps my best work.  
Now I have gone and spent thousands of dollars on 'real' camera equipment I am expecting to get a lot closer to the way that a feature film would render something like that, and I find that I'm still falling quite a bit short.  One of the things that is letting me down is DR.  I realise that my skill level is the number one thing letting me down, but that's not something I can throw money at and DR is!  

[kidzrevil]

@kye im not sure what point you are making. I think you may be over thinking this DR thing a little bit. Even with a high dynamic range camera like a 14 stop alexa a day light situation has way more than 14 stops so you will blow something. Instead of worrying about blown highlights good DP’s preserve the midtone range because our eye is the most sensitive to midtones. So yeah even with an Alexa you will blow something and thats an oscar award winning camera. Dynamic range matters more on a compositional level than it does on a technical especially when most displays are rec709 6-7 stops. Composition matters more than DR, all cameras have “cinematic” DR. “Cinematic” is subjective 

[mercer]

I’m sure there is a scientific cocktail that explains why professional cinema cameras look more cinematic than consumer cameras and why some consumer cameras look more cinematic than others. All I know is that I know it when I see it.

[mkabi]

24 minutes ago, mercer said:

I’m sure there is a scientific cocktail that explains why professional cinema cameras look more cinematic than consumer cameras and why some consumer cameras look more cinematic than others. All I know is that I know it when I see it.

+1

And, its hard to explain to someone - what you are seeing and why its cinematic  

I honestly believe that it has a lot to do with what we've seen in the past... we are just used to it....

I'm guessing that the newbies that watch all their content on 240Hz HDR screens are going to find that cinematic.... but thats the progression of life... watch any current movie say the Revenant, then rewatch Scarface and you can tell that times have changed and what people consider cinematic (then versus now).

BUT... there is a clear way of distinguishing video-ish vs. cinematic.

Grab an old consumer camcorder (the VHS & DVD variety) - film random sh!t with it. 

Put the footage that you take side-by-side with your favorite movie - presto, voila! Instant comparison. 

The best possible result is if you try to emulate a scene from your favorite movie with the consumer camcorder, that way you have a direct comparison.

Now, you have 2 extremes.... one side it will be the video-ish look and the other side is the cinematic look. Now, it is your job to take whatever tool you have (or want to invest in) and make it more cinematic - so you will have to travel away from the video-ish look and move towards the cinematic look.

 

 

[Mark Romero 2]

Firstly, the short video clip you posted looks good, @jonpais

The sticker for me is what is meant by "cinematic," since it is a word bandied about so often.

Firstly, I don't think it is specifically dynamic range of a camera per se that is the main concern. (As someone pointed out, some of the more popular film stocks had limited dynamic range).

I would say that - in terms of brightness and darkness - cinematic in part to me means "controlled lighting" or maybe something more like "well managed lighting."

But that is just one part of the recipe for cinematic for me.

And "well managed lighting" could be everything from using a cheap foam board reflector to using fill lights to shooting in open shade to shooting at the right time of day to using a camera with more stops of DR.

So in essence, I think we might be barking up the wrong tree if we look at it as just "how many stops of DR are needed."

Getting back to the nice sample footage you posted. As someone pointed out above, not a whole lot of DR in those shots.

What would have made it look more cinematic???

Maybe some of these MIGHT make it look more cinematic (maybe or maybe not - I am not implying at all that you SHOULD do these things, just saying that some people might feel your footage is more cinematic if you were to do these things, although others might not):

- gelling your key light

- shallower depth of field

- epic sounding background music

- using a diffusion filter

- more base makeup on the talent

- stronger grading of the footage

- adding film grain

- adding audio from the environment.

~~~~~~~

Man, I ramble on a lot. I guess it boils down to - in terms of dynamic range - managing your lighting, which you did well in the clips you posted.

[AaronChicago]

We've hit the point where there is NO excuse for not shooting cinematic footage with even a $1000 camera. Everything from now on will just be nitpicking features to make things easier/quicker/efficient.

[mercer]

18 minutes ago, AaronChicago said:

We've hit the point where there is NO excuse for not shooting cinematic footage with even a $1000 camera. Everything from now on will just be nitpicking features to make things easier/quicker/efficient.

So you don’t believe there is a camera element involved and it’s all based on the users skill level?

1 hour ago, mkabi said:

+1

And, its hard to explain to someone - what you are seeing and why its cinematic  

I honestly believe that it has a lot to do with what we've seen in the past... we are just used to it....

I'm guessing that the newbies that watch all their content on 240Hz HDR screens are going to find that cinematic.... but thats the progression of life... watch any current movie say the Revenant, then rewatch Scarface and you can tell that times have changed and what people consider cinematic (then versus now).

BUT... there is a clear way of distinguishing video-ish vs. cinematic.

Grab an old consumer camcorder (the VHS & DVD variety) - film random sh!t with it. 

Put the footage that you take side-by-side with your favorite movie - presto, voila! Instant comparison. 

The best possible result is if you try to emulate a scene from your favorite movie with the consumer camcorder, that way you have a direct comparison.

Now, you have 2 extremes.... one side it will be the video-ish look and the other side is the cinematic look. Now, it is your job to take whatever tool you have (or want to invest in) and make it more cinematic - so you will have to travel away from the video-ish look and move towards the cinematic look.

 

 

You know The Revenant is the perfect example of the modern “film” look to me. And Scarface is the perfect example of the vintage film look. When the DSLR revolution began, I believe a bastardized version of the vintage film look was possible with a 5D2 or a t2i or a GH2 and now it seems we’re almost at a point where a bastardized version of the modern “film” look is possible.

If I was forced to explain what about the image makes those films cinematic... I would be at a loss for words other than... open your eyes. But in forums like these where tech and creativity are merged, that is not a good enough answer to many... but unfortunately that’s the best I can do... I know it when I see it. And I know it when I accomplish it...

Sadly, I see it more often than I accomplish it... lol. 

[mkabi]

14 minutes ago, mercer said:

So you don’t believe there is a camera element involved and it’s all based on the users skill level?

lol... I think an idiot user that Fs-up a cell phone video, can also F-up video coming out of an Arri  

[Grimor]

1 hour ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Firstly, the short video clip you posted looks good, @jonpais

The sticker for me is what is meant by "cinematic," since it is a word bandied about so often.

Firstly, I don't think it is specifically dynamic range of a camera per se that is the main concern. (As someone pointed out, some of the more popular film stocks had limited dynamic range).

I would say that - in terms of brightness and darkness - cinematic in part to me means "controlled lighting" or maybe something more like "well managed lighting."

But that is just one part of the recipe for cinematic for me.

And "well managed lighting" could be everything from using a cheap foam board reflector to using fill lights to shooting in open shade to shooting at the right time of day to using a camera with more stops of DR.

So in essence, I think we might be barking up the wrong tree if we look at it as just "how many stops of DR are needed."

Getting back to the nice sample footage you posted. As someone pointed out above, not a whole lot of DR in those shots.

What would have made it look more cinematic???

Maybe some of these MIGHT make it look more cinematic (maybe or maybe not - I am not implying at all that you SHOULD do these things, just saying that some people might feel your footage is more cinematic if you were to do these things, although others might not):

- gelling your key light

- shallower depth of field

- epic sounding background music

- using a diffusion filter

- more base makeup on the talent

- stronger grading of the footage

- adding film grain

- adding audio from the environment.

~~~~~~~

Man, I ramble on a lot. I guess it boils down to - in terms of dynamic range - managing your lighting, which you did well in the clips you posted.

100% agree with those point.

Will ad "camera movement" as key point too.

Simple slider/crane shoots and people around you will say "woah!!, looks like a film!!"

[DBounce]

I'm going to go out on a limb  and suggest  the reason  footage from professional level cameras looks more cinematic than most footage from amateur cameras is more to do with the professionals behind the "professional" cameras.

There's a reason lights comes before camera. Capturing what the eye sees  is not what cinematography is about. It's about creating art.

[webrunner5]

13 hours ago, ntblowz said:

This film shot on AF100 and with GH2 as bcam

 

 

When I had my AF100A I think it was rated at 11 stops of DR, and I found that was pretty close to true. Not ground breaking but it got the job done IF you exposed it right. I used Cine Like D most of the time I think it was called. I lowered the knee a bit on it to keep it from blowing out highlights which it was REALLY bad at doing. It was it's biggest weakness.

[mercer]

13 minutes ago, DBounce said:

I'm going to go out on a limb  and suggest  the reason  footage from professional level cameras looks more cinematic than most footage from amateur cameras is more to do with the professionals behind the "professional" cameras.

There's a reason lights comes before camera. Capturing what the eye sees  is not what cinematography is about. It's about creating art.

I’d agree with this statement... I mean how could I not. But I know for a fact that I can shoot the same exact shot with a GX85 and with my 5D3 Raw and the 5D3 footage will look more cinematic. 

Hopefully you take this as a compliment because it is meant in no other way, but I think your 1Dxii footage looks more cinematic than your more recent Panasonic stuff. Now I assume you haven’t become less skilled over the past year, so there has to be a camera element involved?

To clarify, I do not think your Panasonic footage looks bad, it looks cool, but I do see a difference between the two. 

[mkabi]

@mercer given that you just made a good comparison on the cinematic look (with GX85 vs 5D3; 1DXii vs GH5/GH5S)...

How do you feel about the images coming out of the A73 & X-H1 (the good ones, cause there are a whole lot of bad ones too)?

[kidzrevil]

30 minutes ago, DBounce said:

I'm going to go out on a limb  and suggest  the reason  footage from professional level cameras looks more cinematic than most footage from amateur cameras is more to do with the professionals behind the "professional" cameras.

There's a reason lights comes before camera. Capturing what the eye sees  is not what cinematography is about. It's about creating art.

+1