Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Comcerning the camera: -Frame rate (24) -Aspect ratio (wider) -shutter speed (180· motion blur) -Depth of field (shallow-ish) -Camera movement (smooth vs. jerky) -Dynamic range -Grain structure Cincerning others: -Lighting -Actors performance (Bad actora can make your film look videoish to a shocking degree!) -Editing/color grading -Sound and Music quality I think these are what makes footage look filmic, each point gives a degree of film-look. And following all would give a highly filmic image. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosvus Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Very good summary - I would add a couple of smaller items/elaborate: Concerning Camera/Lenses: -Anamorphic lenses certainly help (though not a must) -MANUAL AF (Focus that jumps around or happens too quickly is jarring and makes it "non-cinematic" in an instant -MANUAL Exposure (and of course set well, though some of that plus WB can be saved in post depending on format) -Arguably some (regular) lenses may be considere more cinematic than others, though I would say a lot of this can be fixed in post if desired. Comcerning the camera: -Frame rate (24) -Aspect ratio (wider) -shutter speed (180· motion blur) -Depth of field (shallow-ish) -Camera movement (smooth vs. jerky) -Dynamic range -Grain structure Cincerning others: -Lighting -Actors performance (Bad actora can make your film look videoish to a shocking degree!) -Editing/color grading -Sound and Music quality I think these are what makes footage look filmic, each point gives a degree of film-look. And following all would give a highly filmic image. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Camera: Everything mentioned above. Film look = either just a look as a combination of the parameters listed or Not a fancy look at all, but *style*, deliberate changes that help to make you feel what the filmmaker wants you to feel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Very good summary - I would add a couple of smaller items/elaborate: Concerning Camera/Lenses: -Anamorphic lenses certainly help (though not a must) -MANUAL AF (Focus that jumps around or happens too quickly is jarring and makes it "non-cinematic" in an instant -MANUAL Exposure (and of course set well, though some of that plus WB can be saved in post depending on format) -Arguably some (regular) lenses may be considere more cinematic than others, though I would say a lot of this can be fixed in post if desired. +1 these too are very important factors. I would also like to add a point about lenses: I've always thought longer lenses give a filmic quality to footage. If you look at most films they're mainly (not entirely) shot on 50+ millimeter lenses. I tend to avoid wide angle unless I really need them. I might be wrong but just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rak_heri Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Can anyone shed some light what creates a "film look" with video, and why some cameras seem better at this than others? Can you post a few screenshots of what you think is a film look? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Of course, we can all talk highfalutin' about how to get superior cinematography with DSLR's/Mirrorless, but here's the cliff notes/shortcut to a "film" look that is pretty cheap and easy. Cheap being an operative word here: Slap some sort of old manual 50mm lens on a Rebel/Lumix/Alpha/Nikon, open the iris all the way, record@24fps, run your shutter @50 or below, adjust exposure with ND and/or ISO --you'd be able to create a "film" look by doing that I'd wager. All would have slightly different IQ, but then so does film stock. Regardless, it's not going to look like video camcorder footage. Well, let's not forget that then you have to do something informed with all such stuff. Knowing why this would work is arguably just as important as doing it, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael1 Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 Andrew, totally agree, the D600 has a lot going against it compared to the GH3, and I've seen the faults, moire, aliasing, etc. I guess I just love the large sensor look and nice optics, and associate it with the filmic look. The D600 also seems to do well with shadows. Now if we can only talk Panasonic into doing a full frame sensor camera, or Nikon do "a Panasonic" on their FF line... :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Now if we can only talk Panasonic into doing a full frame sensor camera, or Nikon do "a Panasonic" on their FF line... :) I recently witnessed a conversation in a shop, where the customer was impressed by the fact that the Nikon of her choice had no video functions at all. She was willing to pay quite a lot for an additional slow Tamron zoom, which made me doubt if she was actually well-informed. Nothing against Tamron, it's just that it doesn't fit the whole concept of serious analog-like photography that sold the camera. It's like having the still marvellous GH2 for cinematic videography and buying an expensive automatic system lens. Glad I found EOSHD! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animan Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I think this is now recognisable to most people as the HDSLR look :) Slap some sort of old manual 50mm lens on a Rebel/Lumix/Alpha/Nikon, open the iris all the way, record@24fps, run your shutter @50 or below, adjust exposure with ND and/or ISO --you'd be able to create a "film" look by doing that I'd wager. All would have slightly different IQ, but then so does film stock. Regardless, it's not going to look like video camcorder footage. Axel 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I think this is now recognisable to most people as the HDSLR look :) It's nothing special any more. Just to counterbalance this, here is an example of ungraded film stock, from those ages when people tried very hard to make their footage cleaner: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I think this is now recognisable to most people as the HDSLR look :) Yup, no doubt. But at the same time it certainly doesn't look "video." I'm not saying it's what you should do without a knowledgable consideration, it's just a quick recipe for hitting those flavors that describe "cinema" (in the context of what it used to be before digital) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzpop Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Well, you seem to assume a lot. :) Well, it is a simple question: Why Do Some Cameras Create More of a Film Look? The question is about camera characteristics, no need to mention shooter or editor, or lighting, or what you smoke, or use to drink after your dinner when it's raining outside and starting to get dark ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurtinMinorKey Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 The question is about camera characteristics, no need to mention shooter or editor, or lighting, or what you smoke, or use to drink after your dinner when it's raining outside and starting to get dark ... Then modest DOF and ~24fps and ~180 degree shutter, and >=720p resolution are pretty much necessary conditions (but not sufficient) for the standard classic "film look". So that means pretty much any camera nowadays. But the responses you see are the result of the OP being a loaded question. i.e. camera's play a small role in creating the "film look" and without other elements, it's just not going to happen, no matter what camera you have. One of the reason why we associate the "film look" with film, is because film is expensive. So there is a selection bias in the quality of what we see. Most of what we see as film has high production value, and therefore lighting, framing, camera movement, and editing are all of a standard that is well above the amateur film-making we see done by most DSLR filmmakers today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 For what it's worth, a 24mm 2.8 on a M43 sensor comes extremely close to matching a cinematographer's sweet spot settings. 35mm film shooting is a smaller imaging area than a full frame sensor, so this does't match up perfectly, but M43 basically has a 2x FF factor. So, 24mm becomes 48mm and 2.8 becomes 5.6. And that's where you want to be a good bit of the time. Maybe slightly longer lens for talky scenes, but otherwise it's a good place to play for a ton of conventional shooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Cunningham Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 ... But the responses you see are the result of the OP being a loaded question. i.e. camera's play a small role in creating the "film look" and without other elements, it's just not going to happen, no matter what camera you have. If you want to see just how little even the current king-of-the-hill can guarantee a "film look" you should beg, borrow or steal Dario Argento's Dracula 3D. Whatever you do don't pay money though. It's one of the most atrocious looking films I've ever seen. I couldn't believe the credits and all the digital post firms that lay their hands on this turd. The credit list went on like you'd just witnessed a big budget Hollywood picture. Besides the effects, which make The Asylum films for SyFy look like ILM blockbusters, the cinematography and grading were often lower than pornography levels. Like early '90s, shot on BetaCam stuff. I don't understand how this could come from the same filmmaker as Deep Red, Suspiria and Phenomena. I mean, content aside, he made beautiful films that had a singular dreamlike quality to them. It was clear that at some point in the digital pipeline someone or several someones had no idea what they were doing and it was all just ruined, even though what was done on set wasn't good. All of the lighting was hard and sourcy, like they were using small cheap units too close to talent in several instances. You had weird cases of blown out faces in a nighttime exterior, etc., etc. Perhaps the DP was intimidated by a digital camera and either failed to light for film or lit in a way that they used to take for granted would look better through the magic of film. It also appeared that there was a botched log-to-lin conversion prior to grading, which might have been done in a heavy-handed, non-color managed 8bit pipeline. Oh yeah, the film was shot on an Arri Alexa to ArriRaw. When I looked up what camera could have possibly rendered such an amazingly horrible looking motion picture I was literally stunned. I really don't understand how this is even possible to do on purpose much less through possibly compounded gross incompetence by multiple crew members and post vendors. It's just baffling. Axel 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 If you want to see just how little even the current king-of-the-hill can guarantee a "film look" you should beg, borrow or steal Dario Argento's Dracula 3D. I used to see a lot of such trash when I was 16. Rutger Hauer as van Helsing looks like the B-version of Anthony Hopkins in Coppolas Dracula. My, what a fine film that is! See the DVD/BD and turn on Coppolas comments. They were advised to use greenscreen instead of old school matte paintings, multiple in-camera exposures through matte boxes (the original purpose, hence the name), on-set light effects, stop motion, reverse time and many other Méliès-like tricks, but Coppola had it his way. Watch this scene: The extremely artificial colors, daring. Carefully, almost lovingly composed. What powerful performances of all! Note, how at 3:07 Reeves' face is distorted by short focal length. Note, how sparingly and appropriately sDoF is used. Just for fun compare the Argento trailer to this scene. Two years ago, I helped a friend of mine to dress a set for a student film (big budgeted for a student film, but we weren't paid). It featured a canary, the pet of a lonesome old man, who kills all his 'birds' in despair when the solitude becomes unbearable. The rooms were supposed to reflect the sentimental hell of this character, dark oak furniture like coffins, light from outside (fat HMIs on a scaffold), much bibelot. When finally the vet arrived with the canary in the (of course) golden cage, we immediately felt pity for it. A professional TV DoP (actually less than a DoP, in german Kamera means more or less operator of main camera) filmed with a Red. During the shoot I mused if with all these high contrasts I could have done anything with my then new GH2, and decided, no, there would be banding and videoish clipping most of the time. Some months later, we were invited to the premiere, but I was there anyway, because I was the projectionist. Big letdown. Nothing of the depressing atmosphere we created was in the final film. I know I'm a lousy photographer, but now I'm convinced that without the fancy HMIs I could have done better with my GH2. Looked as videoish as the Argento trailer above. Therefore: Yes, the HDSLR-look is somewhat more pleasing at first glance compared to ordinary small-chip camcorders. But in the end, this makes less than 10% of the overall production value. Chrad 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Cunningham Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Yeah, I'm not much of a fan of the Copolla version, since by this point he was already well into his decline, but it at least looks like a real movie. My favorite has always been the '79 version with Frank Langella by John Badham ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 A response to "why do some cameras create more of a film look" is simply: Perhaps those cameras are in the hands of people that know how to effectively use them. It's not just the camera that creates the craft. The gear is easy to get now a days. What are you going to do with it is now the bigger question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael1 Posted February 14, 2014 Author Share Posted February 14, 2014 I was searching the internet for hand held footage for the D600, because I wanted to see how well the image stabilization worked. I came across this video done by an amateur, hand held, no scene setup, and no special lighting at all, yet I was surprised how film like much of it looked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 I was surprised how film like much of it looked. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.