The Film Look on DSLRs
 

I'm still getting used to my 550D, which I've mostly been using for photography. Assuming I don't want to color correct in post production, and I need to achieve the 'final look' on set, and I'm shooting for film out:
1. 24p
2. 1080p
3. Fully Manual
4. A combo of prime and zoom lens
5. Good enough set design and lighting (production values)

My question is, will I get the film look as long as I stay within the histogram limits? The objective would be not to blow out the highlights or crush the blacks.

What are the challenges using these systems to obtain the elusive film look?

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

Much of the modern film look is all about the grading. Many films make dark tones teal and bright tones orange. To get the film look without grading can be done, but it takes expert lighting and set/art/costume design. Then again, it depends on what film look you're going for. Do you want the extreme orange/teal of Transformers, bright primary colors as often displayed in Indian films, or the pastels of the 60s?

To get an idea of the power of grading, watch the Colorista II tutorials. Whether or not you use Colorista II, the concepts still apply.

Magic Bullet Colorista II Tutorials by Stu Maschwitz on Vimeo

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

which film look you want to get, Matrix film look, or Kill Bill film look, how do you define film look?
I'd say film look per se is done in the post, i can't imagine any film production bypassing this stage, as with stills where magic is done in Photoshop, with video it's done in color grading software;
filming in digital 24p maybe cool, but unless you will transferring to the film it's useless, and even worse than useless, on the web or computer screen it looks choppy, I would go with 60p, or at least 30p;
histogram is a good tool, but it's not enough if you aiming for a big screen or TV broadcast; you'll also need a waveform monitor readings to stay within limits, if not- I would be more concerned about white balance than exposure,
well, unless it is ridiculously over or under,
best.

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

Not sure if anyone mentioned it, but except for specialized looks, you want your shutter speed to approximate a 180 degree shutter. That means when shooting 24p, you shoot at 1/50. That will give you the right amount of motion blur. IMHO I believe it also helps reduce the rolling shutter effect. The motion blur at that shutter speed also reduces Buba's objections of choppiness.

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

Regarding 24p, that's critical for the film look. Faster frame rates may look less choppy, but they can turn a romantic film look into a TV soap opera look.

The key is to avoid fast pans unless you are tracking a subject. The general rule is seven seconds minimum, edge to edge. This expects a 180 degree shutter, as Chris explained.

Regarding the wide variety of film looks, this video describes it perfectly...

Regarding in-camera grading, that's Christopher Nolan's approach. With tungsten lighting on faces and daylight or fluorescent lighting and various gels on backgrounds, you can get the teal/orange look in-camera. You need to choose the right clothing, paint, and decor too. You will still want to do grading to get the scenes to cut together smoothly, but you don't have to push them as far. Of course, grading is cheaper than buying special clothing, furniture, paint, lights and gels.

And sometimes you have no choice but to grade. We shot a zombie film in the snow. Depending on the clouds, sun and reflections, the snow was recorded as a wide variety of colors. Not only did we need to correct it shot to shot, but we wanted it to have a green cast. It would have been impractical to color an acre of snow with green dye. :)

The bottom line: shoot 24p, color what you can on set, and definitely plan to do color grading in post.

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

If you're in a PAL country I'd use 25p other 24p if you're film is going to be for DVD and isn't going to be film projected. I tend to allows shoot 25, and I don't think you'll be able to tell much difference between 24p and 25p in regards to the film look.

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

I don't want any specialized look. And I'll have to disagree with you on the film look done in post...films shot on film don't need color grading and still has the 'film look'.

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

I've already shot a movie in 25p and released it on DVD.

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

Thanks for replying, it has been helpful. A few thoughts:

It's not about color or a specialized look. My question had more to do with dynamic range, really. To put it better: Can I simulate the dynamic range of film into video through lighting alone? Everything else is constant.

I've actually seen footage shot on 48 and 60fps - I don't think most consumers would know the difference. But this is just my opinion.

True, however the flip side is without proper production design I'll never achieve the film look anyway (failing on production values) - unless I'm shooting exteriors on ready locations and such. So I'll still have to spend for the set I'm dressing or building, so might as well get it done in the right color, tone and texture.

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

I have a question: Do you guys have an example of a video shot on a DSLR that has not been graded and still has the film look (namely via dynamic range and tonal response)? With or without lights, but with talking humans in it.

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

Well, here's one I did for the DVchallenge (theme: Mask) on this site awhile back. Shot on a 7D with a user defined picture style based on NEUTRAL, with Contrast and Saturation reduced by a "notch" or two (I reduce those by two these days). Not one of the really "flat" or "superflat" picture styles but enough to extend the dynamic range more than the default STANDARD picture style.


And another one shot with a T2i for a contest on another site (Theme: Doomed), this one shot with NEUTRAL picture style - no adjustment to Contrast and Saturation. So interior with actor seated at table cleaning a .45 shows colors a bit too "vivid".


The "film" look for each one of us depends on some degree of subjectivity and interpretation. Many factors go into what we perceive as a "film" look and some of these factors are dependent on the story and how we tell it.

Lighting and lighting mood, composition, focus and depth of field all go into what makes a particular "film" look. And there is always the "look" of a particular film stock that may have been used. Are you trying to accurately portray a location or environment where contrast would be a big factor? Mist or misty glade.

There is no one setting, one thing, one technique that achieves the "film" look. It's kind of up to you and your sense of vision.

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

Yes, but the video is private and I can't show it.

I used tungsten lighting on the people in an interview situation and the background was lit with a combination of daylight through tinted windows and fluorescent light. I used a Glimmerglass #1 filter. (I wish they made a #2 in a circular design. I don't have a mattebox, and only #1, #3, and #5 are available in screw-on designs. A #2 would be perfect, IMO.) I shot it in Natural with minimum contrast and sharpness. Saturation was one click below middle.

I ended up adding some contrast and sharpness back in post, but could live with it as is. As I added contrast, I needed to reduce saturation slightly to keep the skin tones natural.

But keep in mind, that this was for a particular orange on teal look. There's no such thing as a generic film look in my opinion. Each stock and process has its own feel.

Of course, if my next scene were shot outside, I would have no choice but to grade it to match that previous scene. When you shoot large areas outdoors, there is only so much that you can control during production - especially if it's partly cloudy and conditions are changing shot to shot.

The bottom line is that DSLRs don't have the range of film. We can use Cinestyle to flatten it as much as possible, but then we risk quantizing noise. If you want film-like range, you don't want a DSLR. You want an Alexa.

The Great Camera Shootout 2011: SCCE ~ Episode One | Zacuto USA

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

Thanks for sharing the videos, Bruce.

I agree with you, which is why I've boiled it down to dynamic range and tonal response, all other factors being constant.

Films shot on film have the film look, don't they? Anyway, let me put it this way: Was there a situation in which you tried your best to emulate the film look (in your own subjective opinion) and failed, even though you satisfied all the established conditions (or norms) to attain that look?

If yes, what did you attribute that failure to?

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

I agree 100%.

Don't they? DSLRs are almost universally used in the photography world (even in medium format) since they easily beat the resolution and range of slide film (and are at least equal to regular color film). The only place DSLRs fall short of is against the dynamic range of black and white film.

Stills or video - it is the same dynamic range from the DSLR sensor under controlled lighting conditions. The zacuto videos pointed this out clearly. Now, I realize that most people don't shoot under ideal lighting conditions, and those who shoot with DSLRs are making more than one compromise on their production. Yet, the potential exists, or does it?

Let me ask my question in another way: Was there a situation in which you tried your best to emulate the film look (in your own subjective opinion) and failed, even though you satisfied all the established conditions (or norms) to attain that look?

If yes, what did you attribute that failure to? Are there cases in which even if you control lighting to fit within the dynamic range of the camera, and choose your ISO wisely, you still get the video feel?

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

Okay, the film look to me is:

1. Shot with 180 degree shutter, to get the motion blur expected of film camera.

2. Shot with similar lens capabilities to 35 mm cinema cameras. This will produce similar depth of field effects. In actuality, APC chips in the 7D, 60D, T3i, et al., are actually closer to that. However, I prefer the 5D because you can get a lot more light into the camera using normal and semi wide lenses from Nikon, and Pentax, as adapted to the camera. I also thing the 5D performs better in low light.

3. Color response close to film stocks. I don't think there are great Picture Styles out there for that purpose. So I use Cinestyle, and in Firstlight from Cineform I will pregrade all footage to a film stock looks selections available in Cineform's First light. The time it costs you is conversion to Cineform before editing. The pregrading is instantaneous, requiring to rerendering. You owe it to yourself to try it. Otherwise, you may want to shoot in Marvel or other picture styles to get as close as you want.

Here are films I have tried these different techniques over the years, most of them for DVinfo contests. The latest was shot with Technicolor Cinestyle. Point is you may think they are not filmic, while I may think I have accomplished my goal.

This one won last DVChallenge:


This one won peoples choice a Sacramento Horror Film Festival



This one was an entry in the Canon/Vimeo contest last year.



This was an entry for DVChallenge on this site:


This was winner of DVChallenge/UWOL Charity event:

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

Funny. I got the impression from the Zacuto tests that the DSLRs clip much sooner than film - especially from the 2010 test on the light bulb. Fortunately, the Canon DSLRs clip cleanly at white, rather than with a yellow tinge. I shot some video recently with Cinestyle that had practical lights in the scene and it still clipped with a bit of a hard contour line. Film would have clipped more gracefully.

Well, there's the above situation with practical lights in the scene. It was a subtle fail. Selective filtering of the hard edge could probably make it less visible.

And, frankly, DSLRs look very nice to me, but never quite look exactly like film. It's a subtle difference. I think the problems have to do with limited horizontal resolution, vertical aliasing, 8-bit depth, and compression. Eliminate those problems - say by shooting a RAW timelapse - and add just the right film grain, and I think the result can be indistinguishable from film.

Well done noise reduction can help with the video compression and 8-bit artifacts, but the result can get a bit plasticky. It's not a bad look, but I can clearly see that it's not film.

The film standard is a challenging one to ask about. I can't do double blind tests on my own material. And the film look is subjective. I think you need to do your own tests and decide what looks enough like film to you.

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

Thank you, Jon, for the comprehensive answer. I, too, feel quite a difference when shooting stills and video with the same settings (neutral mode on the Canon).

The only reason I raised this thread was because of the nagging doubt of whether, assuming the histogram never clips, video will look like film or not. Guess I'll have to find out for myself! Thanks again.

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

Thank you for sharing your videos. I enjoyed Perfect planning. There's one point at around 2.20 when the agent's face first appears, and we see all her wrinkles and highlights. Do you think, with creative makeup and
lighting with nets (or whatever) the effect would have been better?

I have Cinestyle, but my aim here is to get the look while shooting. I did try cineform, and found it useful to a certain extent. However, in my opinion, transcoding all the footage of a feature film is not the best way to go about it in the digital age. But that's another matter altogether.

Actually, I've seen a movie shot on 16mm that looked like video - on DVD of course. It's possible they used the worst lenses, then telecined it on the worst system with the wrong settings.

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

Sareesh, I'm a little confused by what you keep referring as "film look." First of all, nothing looks like film other than film. The silver grains that react to light chemically have no equal in the digital world. One can argue aesthetics all day, but there is simply nothing digitally that matches the random shapes and patterns created by silver halides reacting to light. You're comparing random shapes to a grid of pixels.

Added to this, is the amount of frames per second that the eye is detecting to produce the illusion of motion. With film, that's 24 frames- a very crucial part of the "film look". There's also the dynamic range of film stocks, which, to my eye, still beat out digital video, even beloved cameras like the RED. If you watch a projected 35mm film vs an HD one, there's no doubt as to which has the richer blacks, and the wider amount of detail in both extremes (lights and darks.)

So the best you can do to achieve this look with a DSLR is to light it well, shoot at 24 fps, and play with the image in post to approach the way film reacts to light. You can also do this in the camera settings somewhat, and there's lots of debate about the best camera settings to use- something I haven't really experimented with, so I can't be much help there.

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

This was shot on a 60D and treated in post. It's not film, but with a little tender lovin' care, you can get fairly close.

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

But we still have to emulate the film look while making feature films, unfortunately. Hence, the discussion.

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

Thank you for sharing, Edward.

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

Here's a great example of the film look with Leica-R lenses on a 5D Mark II:

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

To me, it's the grading that gives it a film look. The colors are somewhat muted with the mids pushed toward orange/red. It's also due to the art direction - there are no blues aside from sky and water, and they are especially muted - but not to the point of looking odd. The highlights and blacks are pushed, but to a limited degree - there is a lot of range remaining in the mid-tones. My only beef with the color correction is that the skin tones could have been conformed a bit more consistently. I would have muted the greens to give it a drier look, but that's an artistic choice.

Aside from that, it's just a matter of using good production values and glass. But I don't think that you can get that look right out of the camera.

Note that certain items were saturated - the old guy's scarf and the woman's purple dress. To get those to pop consistently requires a good grade.

Also, note that this is a nice look for a western. I wouldn't be right for, say, sci-fi, unless they were on a desert planet. Or if it's Cowboys vs. Aliens. ;)

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

Um....I don't think this is true. DSLR's get better dynamic range in 'stills' mode than they do when shooting video. Maybe I'm wrong, but
that's what it appears to me, just looking at it with my eyes.

Now I can't verify that what they are saying is true, as I haven't measured it with a scope. I just know what I have seen, and it appears to my eyes that
there is a difference in dynamic range between what you get out of a DSLR in video mode and still mode.

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

According to the guy who did the test, he used "the flattest contrast settings possible." But the test was done in 2010, so I would guess that he used the Neutral or Faithful picture style. It's possible that one can get more DR using CineStyle.

ProVideo Coalition.com: Stunning Good Looks by Art Adams

There's DR and then there's DR. While the camera might get 10 to 12 stops of light (real world DR), it only has eight bits of resolution on the digital side. When you spread those bits too thin, banding is the result - especially after grading. Film doesn't have banding. ;)

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

Typical DSLRs have 8 bits of depth in the video or JPEG images versus 14 bits in a RAW file. The camera captures the dynamic range but has to process the image to 'fit' into the 8 bits of video output. The usual approach is non-linear handling of the darkest and lightest parts of the image in much the same way as film has a non-linear response curve.

If you process still images from RAW files you can work with the full bit depth and use curves to put the light and dark values where you want them. The remaining problem is actually displaying more than 8 bits of dynamic range - most displays can only handle 8 bits. Some professional monitors and video projectors can handle more than 8 bits of digital data and accurately display the full dynamic range.

If you want more dynamic range you need to use a camera that delivers more bit depth - typically in the form of RAW frames (unprocessed sensor data) that can be manipulated heavily in post production without showing excessive noise under difficult lighting conditions.

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

I have a new definition for the 'film look'. It is - anything that doesn't look like video. If a layperson can tell - it fails the test.

In your experience, is blue the primary culprit on why video looks like video? I always observed how the whites always looked 'video-ish'. I had a theory during the shooting of my first film - avoid whites at all costs! Maybe it was just the blue channel?

Agree with you 100%. The author of that video talked about the 'creamy' look he got from those Leica lenses. Now all I can think of is creamy. Is that really a property only of the lens? If so, can it be matched by top glass from Canon or Nikon?

Yes, no doubt about that. There were good people behind the camera there.

True. Coming back to the 'blue' question: is that why it wouldn't work on a 'colder' film?

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

Regarding the "blue question", yeah. For an antarctic film, you'd really want to push the blues while just barely keeping the skin tones from looking unnatural. But you'd want the people to look cold to the bone. The exception is the lips. Often in blue/green films, the lips and blood are still very red. In this case, I'd want to do some exhaustive tests with makeup. You'd want to make it so that when you color correct for a snowy landscape that the faces and lips are close to where you want them. And you want the lips redder than the face, so you can adjust them without rotoscoping a mask.

On the flip side, when you go inside of the "Ice Station", I still want the walls to be cold and blue, but I want the faces to be warm and red/orange.

FWIW, here is a short that we did in mid-December, 2008 - about a month after the 5D2 came out. But first, a bit of history...

* The original 5D2 firmware was auto only. We had to untwist the Canon lens, shine/shade a light into the camera and hit exposure lock at just the right time to attempt to set the exposure.
* Quicktime didn't understand Canon's 0-255 range and would clip at 16-235. Blacks weren't just crushed, they were chopped!

For this shoot, we had a Nikon 50/1.8, a Canon 70-300/4-5.6, and no ND filters. We programmed a custom Picture Style that attempted to lift the blacks from 0 to 16, and that reduced our bit depth. We used an ExpoDisc to set the white balance, but the WB changed minute to minute as the clouds changed and as we moved the direction of the lens. Shooting in the snow is tough! We color corrected in 8-bits, so the banding is horrible. Such were the early days of budget shooting with a DSLR! (And, no, it doesn't look like film, but it's a cold grade outside and a warm grade inside.)


Regarding lenses, nice detail and a creamy feel is the holy grail. :)

That 70-300/4-5.6 was anything but creamy. Photos of wildlife showed the fur as "crunchy", especially when cropped. I sold it and got an EF 200/2.8 L II. What an improvement! I think it comes down to micro-contrast. The 70-300 didn't co-locate the transitions from different wavelengths, making edges look ratty and distorted. It had a plastic feel. By contrast, the 200 produces super-clean edges. I see the same clarity from Zeiss glass. I liken it to the difference between an audiophile's tube amp and a budget transistor job.

There's an additional trick for a creamy look, and that's to use a diffuser. I have Glimmerglass #1 and #3 filters. Unfortunately, the #1 is too subtle and the #3 too aggressive for the perfect film amount. The right choice depends on the content. I didn't use a diffuser at all for a recent technology piece. I used a #1 on an interview with male talent. (And I would have used a #2, if I had one, but they are aren't available in round formats.)

There are a few benefits from using a diffuser. If it's subtle, it adds a Hollywood glow to the image. It knocks down small imperfections and makes skin look better. It can reduce aliasing to some degree. It won't work miracles though. By the time all the aliasing is gone, the diffusion will be over the top. A mister can also help in delivering that Close Encounters, streams of light, look.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure that the Western example you showed didn't use any diffusion. The white stubble of the beard and reflections on the skin detail on the foreheads was really sharp - and over-sharpened for my taste. A subtle diffuser would have tamed that a bit. But it's an artistic choice. Keep diffusion low for grit, though a GG#1 would still work. As I say, the #1 is VERY subtle. I'd like a #2 as a standard film filter. A #3 starts to become apparent as an effect. There are also #4 and #5 filters for when you want to produce a true effects shot.

Of course, you should only use a high quality diffuser. Why spend the money on a lens with great coatings only to put a bad piece of plastic in front of it? You want to retain the micro-contrast between wavelengths while blurring the hot spots slightly.

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

No, you're not wrong. RAW from the camera has far more dynamic range than the video. I tested it today (crudely), and I discovered the difference might be as great as 3-4 stops...Weird.

Here's a link to my results: Dynamic Range comparison of RAW v/s video mode on the Canon 550D | Sareesh Sudhakaran

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

Thank you, Jon, for the great explanation. I'm going to put in more research on diffusers. Appreciate it.

Are you on LuLa? If yes, they're having another war over there regarding micro-contrast and the inevitable analogies regarding audio.

Have you tried the Leica-R lenses on the Canon? The author of that video claimed it was the glass that made the difference.

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

What PictureStyle did you use, Sareesh?

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

Style: Neutral. WB - Shade.

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

It would be good to compare the DR of CineStyle and Neutral. I wish CineStyle had been out before Zacuto did their 2011 shootout.

Re: The Film Look on DSLRs
 

I have repeated the test with Technicolor Cinestyle. Here it is: Technicolor Cinestyle vs Neutral | Sareesh Sudhakaran

My conclusion: Technicolor Cinestyle is only slightly better than Neutral. For HDSLR filmmaking, I'd rather shoot in camera and avoid heavy post processing. However, RAW beats Cinestyle hands down.