View Full Version : You want the film look: get out more often!


Paolo Ciccone
August 8th, 2006, 11:52 PM
How many threads are out there about the "film look" and how many of those end with the famous two words: Magic Bullet?
The answer to the first question is "too many" and to the second is "all of 'em".

What saddens me is the fact that the vast majority of these posts fail to give the most useful peace of advice. Everything seems to gravitate around some plug-in, NLE wizardry or exotic recipes for removing the "video look".
I can't reply to every one of those threads, life is too short, so I wanted to give my two cents here: turn off the computer, grad the camera , get out and shoot.

You know how they say that for guitar players the tone come from their fingers? It's not that a nice guitar doesn't help but Steve Vai will sound like Steve Vai even if you give him a mandolin!
Similarly, if you want to get the nice, lucious, Hollywood-like look you gotta practice and learn to overcome the limitations of the mand... your video camera.

Can it be achieved? Yes, to a degree. How? Not with your NLE. Not with AfterEffects or Shake. The software is not the cure.
Go to your local camera equipement store and start looking at diffusion filters. Get something that gives you a very small amount of diffusion, something that makes the difference, something that you can see with your naked eye, but that is not too obvious. Now put it in fron of your lens. Add ND filters, open that iris and shoot a few minutes of the prettiest face you can find during the "magic hour". You will be amazed how a beautiful model will add to that elusive film look.
Try different angles. Don't have a model? Shoot panoramas. Shoot close-ups with the iris way open and use selective focus. Yes, i's not a 35mm camera but you can still do it. Even at 1/3". Get that damn ND filter an use it to open the iris. You'll see the difference. Underexpose a little, try to get a more dramatic light.
Now that you have your 1/2 hour of footage go back home, acquire it and edit it into a nice sequence ith music and then, only at that point, use the Magic Bullet. Yes, the Bullet works. Yes, it improves the footage dramatically but your diffusion filter is at least as important if not more.
It's that "electric", super-defined look that gives the subtle information to our brain that we are watching a video.
It's not that 35mm film is software by nature. Not at all. It's just that Hollywood perfected the art of diffusion long time ago. And the lighting. You want to look like film, light like film. Watch "The Godfather", "Naked Lunch", "Silence of the Lambs", "The Matrix", any of those and try to figure out the light that the used. Chances are that, if you light like Gordon Willis your footage will look a lot like film.
Watch a movie that you like and try to emulate the same camera angles and lighting. Add your filters and then you'll get much closer to the result that you want, way faster and more effective than any plugin.

Good luck!

Jerry Porter
August 9th, 2006, 06:37 AM
What he said! ^^^ Paolo you are the man shooting straight and hitting the target dead on again. I was going to start a thank you thread this morning, but here will do just fine. I used your T3 setting this weekend shooting an offshore power boat race just for fun and to get some sound effects. I gotta tell you the footage despite my best efforts to screw it up made some beautiful pictures. Figuring out what you have freely given would have taken me months!!!! So thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!! and you know I now have to go play with my filters and find a hot girl!!!!!!

Paolo Ciccone
August 9th, 2006, 08:41 AM
Thank you Jerry. Glad that TrueColor works for you :)

Jonathan Ames
August 9th, 2006, 09:01 AM
Nice, Paolo. That's my buddy!

John Kang
August 9th, 2006, 09:27 AM
So, how do I get that 24p film look, again?

Just kidding. Had to have a groaner here before someone else posted it. :)

I would love to say that I can tell a scene shot from video and a scene shot on film, but most of time, I don't notice a difference.

I mean, if a scene shot on video has not been processed through 24p conversion, color correction, etc...it looks like video.

Then again, films like Starship Trooper 2, Star Wars series, and Robert Rodriguez's recent movies are shot on HD and I can't tell a difference.

Nowadays, I feel that movies and tv shows are shown in so many formats that the perception of film look is changing.

When I practice shooting with my HDV camera, I use an ultraviolet filter and ND settings. I mainly use the filter as a lens protector and use Iris and ND settings to get a decent shot. What I've noticed from working with the camera more and lighting of a set, it's more the lighting that makes the look. Without the lighting in a concert, I'd have a grainy shot that would look like video, but with the lighting done right I get (what I feel) a film look.

The use of ND is definately a must do! The skys are bluer, the colors more vibrant and not whitewashed/blown out.

Jerry Porter
August 9th, 2006, 12:44 PM
Hey Paolo, What is the number one must have filter in your kit for doing what you propose above. I shoot with the HD100 also. I use my ND's and Polarizer liberally. What should I go to the store and buy today? Again thanks for all you advice.

Dennis Stevens
August 9th, 2006, 01:51 PM
I also want to back up what Paolo said.

My gang o' filmmakers and I started doing a lot of 'mini-tests'. Get some people together and have them (or anyone you can find) read lines of a script, just a 1 minute scene.

Then I do one take each with different settings - Paolo's T3 and all the recipes in the sticky in the HD100 forum. Afterwards, we all go out for dinner.

Then I pick the best look for what I want to do, and will do more tests. But it helps me get used to getting the desired image out of the camera.

Joe Bowey
August 9th, 2006, 08:55 PM
I have been wanting to achieve a 16mm 70's look with this camera. I have seen footage that seems to give it a yellowish look to it. Any suggestion Settings, filters, that might help achieve this look?

Paolo Ciccone
August 9th, 2006, 10:26 PM
Hey Paolo, What is the number one must have filter in your kit for doing what you propose above. I shoot with the HD100 also. I use my ND's and Polarizer liberally. What should I go to the store and buy today? Again thanks for all you advice.
A diffusion filter. Check the Tiffen ones, see my post above. Adding a little bit of softness and highlight diffusion improves your look greatly.

Jonathan Ames
August 9th, 2006, 11:24 PM
You ask a very timely question. In fact, Paolo and I have been asked by Tiffen to give them just that so they can begin offering sets to 2nd Unit viewers. Rodney Charters, Jody Eldred and four or five other "high-rent" DPs are answering that very question right now and we'll post the answers in the next couple of days for your review together with the important question "Why" are they must-haves!

Paolo Ciccone
August 9th, 2006, 11:34 PM
I have been wanting to achieve a 16mm 70's look with this camera. I have seen footage that seems to give it a yellowish look to it. Any suggestion Settings, filters, that might help achieve this look?
Yellowish tone can be done easily by doing so grading with either Magic Bullet or Adobe AfterEffects. At the simplest you can make a gradient in Photoshop, or even a solid orange plate, and then combine it in FCP using a mix of transparency and "composite mode" (overlay, color burn etc.)

Robin Davies-Rollinson
August 10th, 2006, 12:47 AM
You guys are quite correct in your thoughts about getting the "best" image at source.
However, there's one extra component that will help you go the whole way - and that's camera movement.
Check out any movie and just count the number of shots where the camera is moving - either on a dolly or a jib.
It's this movement that can give a three-dimensiional look to otherwise flat images by exploiting the old parallax trick...
So, invest in a dolly and/or jib arm and you can really make you videos look like movies!

Robin

Simon Wyndham
August 10th, 2006, 05:10 AM
Camera movement is one thing. But if you shoot with real film, it doesn't stop looking like film just because it might be a wobbly handheld shot. The most important thing is motion cadence.

Get something that gives you a very small amount of diffusion,

Or turn the detail off in the camera! I don't understand why people use diffusion filters for a film look. Not only do films rarely ever have that kind of look any more, but more importantly you won't get rid of electronic edge enhancement to any decent degree.

Turn the detail off or reduce it to a minimum, and save the money that you would have spent on a filter.

Aside from that, good composition in video is no different from good composition in film. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Paolo Ciccone
August 10th, 2006, 08:06 AM
Or turn the detail off in the camera! I don't understand why people use diffusion filters for a film look. Not only do films rarely ever have that kind of look any more, but more importantly you won't get rid of electronic edge enhancement to any decent degree.

Actually diffusion is used very often with film. The secret here is to soften the image a little bit, enough to create a look but not as much to be visible. There are situations where highlights and reflections interact with the filter in a way that you cannot re-create in software and a filter will cost much less, in terms of money and time, than a plugin. My suggestion to use diffusion starts with the assumption that you have *NO* edge enhancement. See the configuration for TrueColor. No edge is one thing, subtle diffusion is another. It's not just a matter of softening the image, it's the way light refracts in the filter. It's impossible to explain with words, you have to see it with your own eyes.

Simon Wyndham
August 10th, 2006, 08:33 AM
It's not just a matter of softening the image, it's the way light refracts in the filter. It's impossible to explain with words, you have to see it with your own eyes.

Oh I realise that. I've seen the use of softening filters a lot. But I don't think it has anything to do with filmlook. Whenever I see them used I know that it is video trying to look like film in fact!

Lets take Saving Private Ryan as an example. Harsh looking with low key contrast created by the bleech bypass. Using a soft filter isn't going to help in creating that sort of filmlook. Same for The Bourne Supremacey.

I guess what I am trying to get at is that there is no single recipe for a filmlook other than getting the motion cadence and the way that film handles different edge frequencies correctly. Anything in addition to that is merely artistic choice and nothing to do with filmlook. Diffusion filters have, after all, been used for years in video as well as film.

On top of this there is the film you are trying to emulate. 8mm S8mm 16mm, S16mm, 35mm? So depth of field isn't an indicator either because the smaller film formats such as 16mm are similar in DOF to 2/3" cameras.

I've made a number of posts on this subject, but the definitive resource, and my main inspiration always will be Alan Roberts papers on the subject. He's spent the best part of the last 20 years or more researching this very subject, and devised a number of settings to be used on various high def cameras (and some standard def). Some of which can be downloaded from the BBC website.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp053.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp034.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp085.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp008.shtml

Jon Jaschob
August 10th, 2006, 11:39 AM
My 2 cents...
I am a beginner to shooting video, I have never shot film, well, a little 8mm when I was a kid. I would like to add one thing to Paolo's post. 9 times out of 10 if I frame a shot so it is uncommon to normal sight, (low, high, shallow, dutch, long, etc.) everyone watching my films says "ooooo, that was a nice shot". I am convinced that using framing and angles not normally seen makes a shot look like the movies,(not necessarily film). I just got a hd 100 and I am totally overwhelmed when shooting, exposure, focus, framing....geez! So I'm agreeing with Paolo 100%, get out there and practice, practice, practice! The shots I get right look like the movies, the shot I don't quite get look like video. Oh and one more thing, story is more important than film look. If your story is good, most people overlook almost everything else. Story doesn't have to be words, or even actors acting, it can be what you are showing viewers through your eye via the camera.
Nuff said,
Jon

Joe Bowey
August 10th, 2006, 02:45 PM
Now, filters are great and can be expensive so do you guys use a mattebox and 4x4 filters or just an 82mm threaded filer. I have a circualar poarizer and it was thebest investment I mad so far for my camera but i dn't want to purchase 2, one for a mattebax and to thread on.
Also do you guys keep the detail off on your camera?

Paolo Ciccone
August 10th, 2006, 03:26 PM
Matte box, detail set to MIN

Scott Tebeau
August 10th, 2006, 04:22 PM
I had a look at the Tiffen site. There are more choices then you can shake a stick at. So, what are people using – Black promist? White, Warm soft, Warm black, Softnet….? The list goes on and on.

I had my eye on the 1/8 black promist.

Paolo Ciccone
August 10th, 2006, 04:28 PM
I had a look at the Tiffen site. There are more choices then you can shake a stick at. So, what are people using – Black promist? White, Warm soft, Warm black, Softnet….? The list goes on and on.

I had my eye on the 1/8 black promist.
Scott, your best option is to find a local dealer where they have the filters and look at them with your own eyes.

Scott Tebeau
August 10th, 2006, 04:58 PM
Thanks Paulo. Don’t think that will be possible here in Portland.

Do you have any personal favorites?

Gabriel Yeager
August 10th, 2006, 05:41 PM
Thanks a lot Paolo! I am 100% behind you all the way! You are truly a great inspiration for me as a young videographer.
Thanks Paulo. Don’t think that will be possible here in Portland.

Do you have any personal favorites?

hi, scott.
I just found this store located in the portland area, you might want to check it out. http://www.prophotosupply.com/index.htm

Gabriel.

Jonathan Ames
August 10th, 2006, 10:22 PM
Let me address this tomorrow when I have more time but the fact of the matter is that Tiffen has asked us to put together 4 packages for the DV shooter that they will then offer. I'm almost through with the evaluation and will post the results tomorrow. Please bear with us until then. I promise, it'll be well worth the wait...and the price. Tiffen will be pricing them specifically lower as 2nd Unit Series, by as much as 20%, than individually and we can get them to you before they hit the stores. You'll buy them from your local dealer eventually when the promo goes out but for now we'll get them for you and just ship them out to you with no markup. We're not in that business.
Jonathan

Paolo Ciccone
August 11th, 2006, 07:00 PM
Simon,

I think we probably all agree that there isn't a single "recipe" for "film look". Even the term "film look" is no absolute, different people have different ideas of what that means.
My post was meant as a, somawhat provocative, suggestion to pay more attention to your optics than to your bits. Because this will yeld faster and better, IMHO, results.
24fps, progressive scan like the one we have on cameras like the HD100 or the Sony F-350 are defintely necessary but by itself 24fps is not enough.

I'm lucky enough that every week I have to gear up for a new episode of "2nd Unit" and this continuos exercise has tought me more in 2 months than the past 2 years. So, my humble suggestion is to "force" ourselves, as much as possible, to forget the computer gadgets and spend more time with the camera.
Filters, camera angles, camera movements , 24fps, etc. All these are necessary elements, it's important that we look in that direction and become proficient in the art of cinematography, more than in the use of a plugin.

Cole McDonald
August 11th, 2006, 08:00 PM
I find the "film look" to be a misleading and pointless term...I think we video folk should strive to make the best possible video we can and be proud that we can work within a restrictive medium to acheive presentable results.

As has been said before, film is the film look...make your video look really good. Content is king in both mediums...I've walked out of the theater on 35mm movies before because they were unwatchable...I've been captivated by highly compressed video at quarter TV resolution...let's drop the whole "film look" thing now and move on to great looking video.

Jonathan Ames
August 11th, 2006, 11:47 PM
I can say no more than Mr. McDonald is precisely right and i applaud him for his conviction and articulation. One of the exciting announcements I can't make until Tuesday is based in this very statement and our selection of cameras, lenses and accoutraments that fit the script bear out Mr. McDonald's position. Bravo Cole. More to come.

Warren Shultz
August 12th, 2006, 12:22 AM
Check out Bruce Willis's movie "Hostage" (2005). Film makers know how to create the "Video Look" when they want. When Bruce's character is doing a TV interview they turn on the edge enhancement to a great extreme to contrast the look with the film look. In fact, you see that trick used in movies a lot.

I don't find the description of the "film look" to be pointless or misleading. It is a look that can be studied and emulated in cadence, latitude, colors, etc and looks are often created in post for both video and film to create mood and emotion. The fact is, if you are shooting a story or trying to make a movie you will try to achieve the film look. If you're shooting a corporate piece or documentary, you will be thinking differently about the look and will be satisfied with great video.

The fact that video and post technology is reaching the point where we can now change the look is what these discussions are all about.

Tip McPartland
August 13th, 2006, 03:41 PM
Watching a film the other night after browsing this thread, it hit me what the real sources of film look are.

First, is the single camera shooting style where lighting doesn't have to cover all angles at once like it does in daytime drama or sitcoms. This will probably rankle a few people, but the realities of multi-camera shooting, even in the hands of a George Divie (who pushed the key/fill ratio beyond the medium's prior limits and made multi-camera look as good and dramatic as it could), creates a "television" look that is still by it's nature not what can be achieved in a single camera production. I've seen 35mm acquired sitcoms that didn't have, well, they didn't have the "film look!"

For example, two of my best friends were principals on "Family Ties" and I know for a fact that is was shot on 35mm, and expertly so under the multi-carmera realities. But there are probably many one-hour dramas shot in HD today that have far, far more of a "film look" than Family Ties!

Another factor is the mixture of the one-camera format with the skill, training and professionalism of the feature film cinematographers and their lighting crews. Throw in the top make-up people, the well-exeuctued work of the production designers and all the other crafts that it takes to make a production look like a "movie," and you're on your way to the "film look."

Finally, it's the post process and in particular the very skilled and experienced (and expensive) colorist who ultimately gives the film it's look. I had to re-cut some episodes of a film one-hour drama (In the Heat of the Night), and the uncorrected film footage looked worse than just about any video you could imagine, bad green or blue casts, low saturation and so forth. But the data was in there to "fix it in post" -- yes, at least in that case, the colorist even had to give single camera acquired flim it's "film look."

If any of us can approximate those conditions given our level of budget, our access to capable people in all the crafts, and if we are able to block out the time to give these people the chance to fully utilize their talents and abilities, and it gets good color correction, then you will achieve the film look too. Filters, plug ins and everything mentioned on this thread will all blend in to the overall process.

After reading the BBC white paper linked here and learning that the latitude of video really isn't that much (if any) worse than film's, and seeing how the three emulsions in the film have such widely varied exposure/gamma response for each color, it's a miarcle that even film achieves a satisfactory film look. In some ways they may have a bigger hill to climb to get a great image than good video does with our ability to white balance and do real-time monitoring. But the film industry has had many, many decades to season top people, refine their skill sets, and perfect their work flows.

I really believe that we HDV video dogs can refine our skill sets and work flows too and make imagery to rival film and high-end HD acquisition. But we have to pay attention to all the areas above (crafts) and address them as best we can.

Thankfully, it's more about time than money. Take time with lighting so your subject looks the way you think a film should look, then take another look and light the background right as well as the subject. Bother with a make-up person. Bother with some attention to production design, even if you have to do it yourself. Learn to use the color correction tools in your NLE such as Color Finesse and read a book on the colorist's craft if necessary.

And don't forget to study the 2nd Unit episodes for millions of good ideas that will help us ALL shoot and cut like pros.

Tip McPartland
Vice President of Production and Development
TMC Entertainment

Cole McDonald
August 13th, 2006, 04:14 PM
I second Tip!

Joe Bowey
August 13th, 2006, 05:41 PM
Now there you go. I thought "Family Ties" (an excellent show by the way) was shot using the old tube video cameras. Now that is an excellent example of how Film can be shot to look like Video.
Lighting makes such an impact on the whole look weather film video or?.

Jonathan Ames
August 13th, 2006, 06:26 PM
Tip is just so accurate. And thanks for the 2nd Unit plug. The great thing is that everyone here speaks their minds so if we suck, you'd tell us. That's why if we do put the deal together this week, Tip, I'll be really, really happy to have you on-crew for the feature. So say a prayer that the powers that be bless the idea on Tuesday.
J

Cole McDonald
August 13th, 2006, 09:41 PM
Mr. Ames, I didn't think there was anyone left who didn't watch 2nd unit...why would it need plugs ;)

Simon Wyndham
August 14th, 2006, 03:57 AM
Umm, there's me. Whats 2nd Unit?

Jonathan Ames
August 14th, 2006, 10:29 AM
Haaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You see, there's someone. BTW, see the post by Rodney Charters, DP of "24"! I'm posting in a new thread. As you know, I usually don't do this but Rodney's such a great guy I'm proud to post what he wrote.

Paolo Ciccone
August 14th, 2006, 11:36 AM
Umm, there's me. Whats 2nd Unit?
Hi Simon.
"2nd Unit TV" is a webcast show that aims to bring the pros of the industry in front of the camera for a discussion about the art of film/video-making. So far we've been honored to have George Spiro Dibie, Jodie Eldred, Richard Mall and Jeff Murrell, and others sharing their invaluable experience. You can see the majority of the interviews (we miss one episode) on our website: http://www.2nd-unit.tv
A new episode 2nd Unit is released every Friday.

Simon Wyndham
August 14th, 2006, 03:14 PM
Cool! I'll give it a watch! :-)

Cole McDonald
August 14th, 2006, 06:24 PM
shame paolo...how could you forget isabella ;)