Film Like Look

[Thomas Foss]

Thanks Ken for taking the time to post all that information. You do know your stuff! I will be trying these different settings out in the next few weeks. Thomas

[Zach Love]

1st - nice job Ken

2nd - if you're doing short films for your Church, unless they're spending $60,000 (what many professional short films cost) on each 2-8min project, don't worry too much about getting that "film" look

3rd - 24p is over rated (I know a bunch of people want to yell at me for now), why? b/c film is all but extinct. Once 95% of movie theaters convert to digital projectors no one will care about 24 fps, except the museums.

4th - the "film" look is pretty much a low depth of field (DOF). go to the library & get any book written in the last 50yrs. the physics of optics didn't change when video came out

the short version, to get a narrow DOF, you need a longer lens & wider aperture. ie zoomed in as far as you can go & you "f stop " the lowest number you can get.

although, if you're zoomed in all the way & want a wide shot, you're going to have to stand very far away & get some walky-talkies to talk to your actors.

if you don't have a set of ND filters, then you can turn on your shutter to decrease the light coming into the camera, so you can open up the iris & still get proper exposure

5th - VERY IMPORTANT, unless you have a really good eye & a good external color monitor, don't turn your shutter on under fluorescent lights. Fluorescent bulbs have a slight flicker that will cause the color temp of your picture to change back & forth & back & forth IF you have your shutter running. (you can see a similar physical effect by pointing your camera at a computer screen w/ the shutter on)

the best thing to do is to keep the shutter as slow (1/30 1/60) as possible under fluorescent lights


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

all in all though, as long as you white balance, focus & expose correctly, you will have a very nice product that the people in your church will probably think looks great

[Simon Wyndham]

4th - the "film" look is pretty much a low depth of field (DOF).

No it isnt. Try getting shallow depth of field with 8mm film.

the short version, to get a narrow DOF, you need a longer lens & wider aperture. ie zoomed in as far as you can go & you "f stop " the lowest number you can get.

Again, wrong. Depth of field is purely to do with imaging area (CCD or film size), combined with F-stop. Having a long lens has nothing to do with it. All a long lens does is enhance an effect that is already there, may not be as apparent due to resolution.

then you can turn on your shutter to decrease the light coming into the camera, so you can open up the iris & still get proper exposure

Are you joking?

[Thomas Foss]

Simon, you posted "Turn down the detail on the camera if you can.... "

How do I turn down the detail on this camera?

[Simon Wyndham]

From what others have said, you can't. I was referring to filmlook in general.

[Steven Houser]

feedback would be nice! ANY

[Simon Wyndham]

You must have a pretty huge back yard to fly that helicopter in!

Yeah, that looked pretty filmic to me. 35mm adapter?

[Steven Houser]

yes flip enhanced thx for the feedback first test run with the HDR-FX1
no heli though!

[Thomas Foss]

Steven, are you using the JY-HD10U or HDR-FX1? If you are using the HDR-FX1 does it have the same options? ie ... 30P ... 720? If it does, what settings did you use and just using the 35 MM adapter give that look? Where can I pick the 35MM up for the JY-HD10U for a good deal. Thanks

[Ken Hodson]

Thomas, you really need to start taking advantage of the amount of answers already available to you in this forum. Search this forum for key words that intrest you, or even scroll down the thread list for a page or two. 35mm adaptors have been one of the more popular threads here as of late.

Again I would like to state that shallow DOF does not equal "film-look", lighting does. If anyone disagrees, go watch Citizen Kane, which is the choice of most critics as the greatest film of all time. There is so much more to be gained by learning to use the tool you have to the maximum of its ability. The HD10 is capable of great imagery, but push it out of its sweet-spot and you will have crap.
Artistic styles can be achieved in post, which is equal to or greater in skill then shooting. What is the post workflow? What is the compositing software? What plug-ins? What codecs are used from capture through editing to compositing to render to output to DVD?

[Steven Houser]

I am using a HDR-FX1 Import with Raylight and my best settings for 35mm Film transfer is ,1080i or 60i using DVFilm that converts 60i to 24p then I edit using Fusion5 or V7 The render that you see is my first 5 min shoot and render with these settings I did stay away from the Cine24 wich is not a true 24p just emulates..
I did use a CC in post V7 and will share settings if asked the adapter runs around $700 that I have from Quyen Le maker of the adapter but it is really just for the D.O.F I am using very cheap lens canon 1:2 50mm on that shot paid $35 for ,Nikon is what I want but Have no Budget for them...
Im not yet sure if I think it looks like Film yet Do You? any feedback would be great Trying to get my Ducks in a row before I shoot this Film Called NUMB!

[Simon Wyndham]

Again I would like to state that shallow DOF does not equal "film-look", lighting does. If anyone disagrees, go watch Citizen Kane, which is the choice of most critics as the greatest film of all time.

The only thing video can do to get a film look is with regards to temporal motion. And even then it is a 'current' filmlook. If film was running at 60fps then proscan video at 60fps would also be a good match.

Lighting has nothing at all to do with filmlook. Does 8mm home cine footage look any less like film because it isn't lit with HMI's and shot with a camera off a jib or dolly etc?

Film look is progressive scan at ANY framerate without artificial digital edge enhancement. Anything above and beyond that is just high production value.

[Steven Houser]

DOF is the unreal look of a Film of course Lighting can play a factor as well ,but when you do not offer DOF it just looks like Video footage to me unless capturing a wide shot it can be usefull there! Film Look= DOF +24p motion + layered lighting + nearly 2k res can give you that =35mm Film Look
And if you are shooting with 720x480 will work fine for TV not theatrical on big screen not enough video lines unless you pay like $250 per min Transfer!!
So what I am saying DOF is a very important factor to get the High Dollar Look! Go rent any High Budget Film and you will see how much DOF is in it!

[Ken Hodson]

I guess we should clarify "film-look". To me it isn't making it look like actuall film (should we be adding grain and dust marks and scratches?) but the emulation of a high quality film production look, and all that intails. I think everyone would agree that is what is strived for in these regards. And I'll state it again, that means lighting, lighting, lighting. Yes progressive and wide screen are a given, and being what forum we are in not worth mentioning

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

Film look is progressive scan at ANY framerate without artificial digital edge enhancement. Anything above and beyond that is just high production value.

And without proper lighting it will look like high contrast video junk shot by a noob.

[Steven Houser]

Here it is! I am trying to achive the FILM LOOK as in the DOF that I see in EVERY Film I've Watched! Lighting plays a very important part in creating certiain looks.. But when I film outside I use only bounce cards no Lights durring the day ! I will shoot a test inside this week showing film lighting only then with DOF we can all check it out in still images..
Nice Chatn guys goto get back to Fusion5 I keep finding new software..lol
I've only been Filming for 4 months tests only so I can achive a Film Look before I schedule shoots!
Cya next week!