Why Do Some Cameras Create More of a Film Look?

[Michael1]

I'm an amateur on the market for a new camera for shooting videos (and preferably some stills with the same camera).  I've looked at a lot of online sample videos from various cameras, especially the Panasonic GH3 and Nikon D600.  One thing I have noticed is some camera models seem to have more videos with a distinct "film look".  Some people here call it "organic" (vs. camcorder look).  I've tried to mentally isolate what might create the film look, but I am coming up short.  Perhaps it is a combination of factors, such as limited depth of field, high dynamic range, a degree of softness, and maybe even the characteristic of the noise.  I'm just not sure.

 

My left brain says Andrew rates the GH3 as a much better video camera (and he mentions a lot of good reasons), but, damn, my right brain loves the film look that people seem to so easily get out of the "lesser" Nikon D600/610 (and is starting to override my left brain).

 

Can anyone shed some light what creates a "film look" with video, and why some cameras seem better at this than others?

 

Michael

[dbp]

Hah, it'd be wonderful is someone could actually break it down that simply. There's been pages and pages of discussion on many a forum about that very thing. I think it's subjective, tough to articulate, and tough to isolate variables. IE: The camera itself vs the lighting, framing, blocking etc etc...

 

Always fun to try and decipher though.

[James_H]

I think it's subjective, tough to articulate, and tough to isolate variables. IE: The camera itself vs the lighting, framing, blocking etc etc...

In my opinion, other than the frame rate, most cameras can produce very nice film-like images given the right scene, lighting, etc.  I think the sensor is actually a relatively minor factor when you have control over what you're filming.  Of course, you don't always have complete control (think run-n-gun documentaries), so in those cases the camera will actually make a more significant difference.

[Axel]

5D MII and 5D MIII with open apertures (sDoF) and @ 24/25p will provide aestetics that are as cinematic (as a parody almost) as it gets.

 

Run&gun with said cameras, with clipping highlights, inappropriate shutter, shaking and shivering, small apertures, big DoF and no or boring motifs will say 'video'.

 

Careful lighting, good framing, interesting motifs - in short, creation of images - and an old HDV-camcorder ....

[Michael Van Ostade]

I actually think grading is also a big part of it. People leaving their footage LOG because it "looks" filmic or people using LUTS etc... While GH2's canon h264 have "baked" images with not a lot of leeway for change.

[andy lee]

what gets you the 'film look' is how you use your lenses , you can make any camera look like video if you use it how Axel describes above,

 

I agree with him on this , a Canon 5d can look cinematic when used right and like video if used wrong,

 

a good collection of lenses for your camera will give to a film look be it a Nikon Panasonic or Canon

[Stab]

I think most modern camera's with a big sensor can look cinematic, in the right hands.

 

I don't think a GH3 is less cinematic than a 5D or D600 at all. It can be, but that would be because of the cinematography.

 

Give whatever camera the correct exposure, a cinematic framing and especially grading, that is what is going to make the difference. And then, I would rather 'start off' with a camera with a high resolution, non aliasing, low contrast 'base-image'. And I tell you the GH3 can do that.

[Quirky]

 

Can anyone shed some light what creates a "film look" with video, and why some cameras seem better at this than others?

 

30% the shooter,

60% the editor,

10% the camera.

 

The camera quotient may have a +/-10% range of fluctuation, depending on the case, but that's about it.

 

Besides, the "filmic look" is a highly subjective concept. It has become a superficial buzzword which means different things for different people. The alleged look of any given camera depends highly on the shooter and the production value put into the video clip. Most dSLR's are pretty crappy as "filmic" cinema cameras, anyway, regardless of their sensor size.

 

Conclusion;

Not much point in obsessing about those mainstream camera bodies, especially based on YouTube videos. You are likely to achieve a much more "filmic look" with the gear you already have by simply putting more effort into lighting, shooting and editing.

You'll save some money, too. To be used later on something that matters.

[Andrew Reid]

It's actually 100% the shooter, 100% the editor and 100% the camera :)

[HurtinMinorKey]

30% the shooter,

60% the editor,

10% the camera.

 

50% Lighting

20% Shooter (who may also be responsible for controlling light)

20% Camera-Lenses.

10% grading

[Andrew Reid]

Honestly guys this percentage breakdown thing is ridiculous. If you're a shit shooter accounting for 20% of the overall look, your overall look is going to be zero percent good not 80% good thanks to a camera and set of lights.

 

And if your camera and lens looks horrible and can't deal with the scene or the light, then even a good shooter will struggle.

 

Back to the original question of why some cameras are more filmic than others...

 

It's a combination of some key things but not exclusive to this list only -

 

Motion cadence, 24p

Dynamic range

Colour

Compression and codec and the effect that has overall especially on grain texture

Lens

 

If your right brain loves the D600 then it's probably due in part to the footage and the way it's shot, also the sensor size and lens used. Because nothing else in terms of the D600's image is more filmic than the GH3. It has more compression, more weird digital artefacts, more moire and aliasing. It's just easier to make full frame look like film because of the lovely rendering of optics at that sensor size. GH3 needs fast optics to really shine.

[fuzzynormal]

5D MII and 5D MIII with open apertures (sDoF) and @ 24/25p will provide aesthetics that are as cinematic (as a parody almost) as it gets.

 

 

This is true.  

 

I've done it for this exact look.  It's definitely one of those "too much of a good thing" kind of aesthetics; which is interesting if that's what you're going for.

 

Bottom line (this is an exaggeration but with some truth in it) if you're an amateur and unaware of the "recipe" to create cinema, it's probably going to look like video.  You could shoot and then project film camera footage in such a way to make it look like video, for instance.

[fuzzynormal]

I still assert that if you have the right skills and people, you can go into a camera store, leave after spending $500, and have good enough imaging gear to shoot a film that has the potential look indistinguishable from most of the films that have ever existed.

 

The imaging devices are now that good.  It's all the other stuff that matters more.  And there' so much other stuff.  If you want to be a filmmaker, an answer isn't "buy this or that camera."  It's "study."

 

You can't buy your way into a career by purchasing gear.  (you kind of could a generation ago)  You have to develop skills and then have a viable, unique, and interesting outlook with those skills.

[Quirky]

Honestly guys this percentage breakdown thing is ridiculous.

 

Suppose that depends on whether you're a pragmatic or a pedantic.

I can only speak on behalf of my own comment, obviously, but the actual numbers mentioned were hardly the point. Just an attempt to simplify the message, not to be taken literally.

 

 

 

If you're a shit shooter 

 

...none of this really matters, well, duh.

 

 

accounting for 20% of the overall look, your overall look is going to be zero percent good not 80% good thanks to a camera and set of lights.

 

Who was your math teacher, or did you actually have one? Your math doesn't make much sense today.  ;)

 

Again, I can only speak for myself, but who has even tried to suggest anything like that? The "math" simply doesn't work that way.

 

The percentage crackdown merely means that if you're a crappy shooter/editor, your chances of getting good, "filmic" look (whatever that means to each) are slim with any camera, and therefore the more efficient way to improve the footage is to improve yourself first, rather than just buying the fanciest gear you dare to buy. Likewise, if you're a good shooter/editor, you may be able to make even crappier gear to look more "filmic" than a bad shooter with the same gear ever will.

 

Crappy gear is just, well, crappy gear. It may produce better looking footage in skilled hands than in unskilled hands, but it's still just crappy gear.

 

Looks like several people are trying to say more or less the same thing, only with in different words and styles. I suppose most people here would agree that the so called filmic look is somewhat subjective, though. 

 

Okay, with that said, on with the geekspeak and bickering.  :)

[HurtinMinorKey]

Of course putting numbers on everything is silly (but fun), although I still think lighting is the most important factor. A great camera and good post can make up for it (at the expense of a lot of time). But having the lighting and framing perfect is what makes a great scene.

[Sean Cunningham]

Some of the best looking films and best looking photographs are completely void of conventional "lighting".  They have no contrived placement of artificial light.  Instead it's the shooter's eye and ability to capture what is naturally occurring in an artistic way or their ability to put their subject where the best light is naturally occurring.  An inverse of the conventional artifice.

 

The shooter is the most important element.  Everything else makes their job easier or harder, offers "freebie" production value or forces their hand at every step of the process.  

 

With all of the patches, lenses and shooting styles there is no, for instance, guarantee with a GH2 you're going to end up with a great or even good image.  It has no single look.  You can find loads of footage that's completely pedestrian, that looks like it might have come from a BestBuy camcorder or worse, someone's camera phone.  Then you have well monied enthusiast shooters who have invested in lights and rigs and all sorts of stuff and yet their footage too can be lifeless and boring, even if you can see the money spent on trying to elevate production value.  

 

And then you have someone like the 19yr DeShon Dixon from LA who has no money for lights or rigs, just his GH2 and a single 35mm Rokinon prime shooting music videos.  He rides the bus to shoots, often relying on only God's Light or whatever practicals are around the scene and much of his work could play alongside music videos shot on an Alexa.  His work would be no less impressive on a Canon Rebel and possibly no more impressive if you changed absolutely nothing about his style or methods but swapped in a RED or Amira.

 

It's the shooter and the choices they make.

[bzpop]

fairly simple question, but it looks like no one reads it :)

Answering your original question without going deep into the conversation on the subject, and assuming that different cameras are used by the same DOP, and in the same environment,  i say it's dynamic range and color sampling. Having wider dynamic range allows skilled colorists create any look you want, either 'Matrix' film look, or 'Kill Bill' film look, and of course 444 looks a bit better than 420

 

but it's certainly not what 'makes' the magic :)

 

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zJahlKPCL9g

 

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vslQm7IYME4

[HurtinMinorKey]

Some of the best looking films and best looking photographs are completely void of conventional "lighting".  They have no contrived placement of artificial light.  Instead it's the shooter's eye and ability to capture what is naturally occurring in an artistic way or their ability to put their subject where the best light is naturally occurring.  An inverse of the conventional artifice.

 

I still consider making the best use of natural or available light under the realm of "lighting". So we are not in disagreement.

[dhessel]

Camera specific factors that will get you a film look, in my opinion, are...

 

1. Shooting 24P with a 180 degree shutter angle.

2. A camera with a super 35mm or larger size sensor.

3. A camera that shoots raw to avoid digital compression artifacts and loss of grain plus the ability to grade the footage.

4. Internal color math that is closer to natural film response if not shooting raw.

 

On a related note sensors on a digital camera have a different response to colors in comparison to traditional film some are probably closer than others. I personally feel that while using a film emulation LUT to get the colors into a more film like response can be a good starting point to getting more film like colors when used carefully and sparingly. Then of course a proper color grading from there.

 

These are the easy ones, the rest is up to the talent of the camera operator.

[Quirky]

fairly simple question, but it looks like no one reads it :)

 

Well, you seem to assume a lot.  :)

 

 

Answering your original question without going deep into the conversation on the subject, and assuming that different cameras are used by the same DOP, and in the same environment, 

 

The original question didn't seem to assume that. The post as a whole was more all over the place, mentioning online videos.

Saying that the D600 is producing a more "filmic" look than GH3 (for example) would suggest that the whole concept of a filmic look is indeed very subjective, and thus almost any of the already submitted answers was more or less appropriate.

In this case, it's pretty easy to assume that the filmic look perceived is related to the sensor real estate, together with a suitable lens, like Andrew already suggested. But as you're suggesting yourself, the sensor size is not all there is to it. 

 

 

 

 i say it's dynamic range and color sampling. Having wider dynamic range allows skilled colorists create any look you want, either 'Matrix' film look, or 'Kill Bill' film look, and of course 444 looks a bit better than 420

 

Someone considers the look of the D600 to be more "filmic" than the look of the GH3, whilst someone else considers the look of, say, the Digital Bolex as quite filmic indeed, more so than the D600, even though the Bolex has much smaller a sensor than the GH3.

 

Clearly those people have different views on what looks "filmic," and neither is necessarily all wrong. It's more about the other stuff beyond the obvious technical trivialities. One man's filmic is other man's digital porridge, and so on.

 

Bottom line, perhaps there is no one simple answer. It's partially all those things you said, partially a matter of taste. Whatever one considers to look "filmic" in the first place.