Getting "film look" with EX1
 

Like many newcomers to this site, I've been reading for hours a day for a good while now, trying to learn everything I can. My EX1 will be arriving Wed or Thurs! One of the reasons I went with it, though its much more expensive, is that I've seen some amazing footage out there shot with it. I want to be able to achieve the "film look"! I've picked up several things from my reading about how to get it from the EX1, but I thought I'd ask the group what they do to achieve it. I've been reading and watching a lot on Philip Bloom's site as well, and his look is definitely what I'm after (not that I have anywhere near his talent). Here are the things I've gleaned from my reading on this and other sites:

- shoot 24p
- use custom Picuture Profiles
- Letus Extreme adapter in order to use 35mm lenses (which AFAIU only helps with DOP, not neccesarily the non-video-look)
- turn shutter on and set to 1/48th
- Magic Bullet Looks to do color grading
- shallower DOP for a more cinematic look (again, Letus Extreme is supposed to help with that)

I don't know if its interlacing vs progressive, or color grading, or shot composition, or some kind of post work, or what. Can anyone post their solution to getting the "film look", and if possible, some footage to demonstrate?

Hey David, glad you joined! Those will all help there. The other 3 biggest aspects are lighting, shot composition and sound. I know sound doesnt give you a look, but it adds to the feel and bad sound ruins anything. But definitely lighting. I did a spec shoot a week ago with 2 kinos, my LEX/EX1 and was really happy with it!

My other tips with the camera is flatten out the image as much as you can to maximize your dyn range, dont underexpose or blow out your highlights. A matte box even without an adapter.

Maybe its just me, but I think you can get the film look without 24P... unless you are going out to film then, why bother when you can have slightly higher frame-rate of 30p

I cant remember the links but they made a great case against 24p, claiming it was jittery on long pan shots (they used Bourne movies as examples)

Also the James Cameron article of late talks about frame rate and how 24p doesn't really cut it. He says 48 fos is the magic number...

But I think you are off to a great start with the EX1, this site and Bloom's sagely advice. Best of luck to you, no matter what frame rate you choose.

If you are dealing specifically with the EX1:

1080 24P allows you to overcrank to 30fps. It's not much, but it gives some movements a little more grace.

If I understand correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong), Blu-Ray doesn't allow 1080 30P without transcoding.

Do a search and you'll find dozens of threads about depth of field. DOF is a tool, not a goal. When Michael Mann remade Miami Vice, he was fascinated by the increased DOF made possible by smaller format cameras. It seems that extremes of DOF go in cycles.

Pete

The above are all good ideas but the most important is how you set the camera. Don't pray that one day you will find a magic recipe to make every shot you take look good like a lot of folks here are searching for. There is no lost chord or some philosophers stone.

This camera has about ten major menus each of which can be set from -99 to +99 and if you include the matrix and cine settings there are in fact something like 240,000 discrete picture profiles! You must get to know your camera and be prepared to adjust all those menu as you see fit for every shot! Of course, in reality many of the menus can be set at default levels and forgot until a special situation occurs but there are many items like the Cine settings and the matrix and the master black levels that must be set for every shot every time. This camera is not like the Z1 that gave great HDV every shot in full auto, this camera gives great full cinealta quality true HD but it is very easy to screw up.

So bottom line is first to get to know your camera. And have great fun doing it. Glad to see you here.

might i suggest turning sharpening off?

and also always exposing for highlights...

thats a good point about DOF Pete. I watched Collateral on DVD with Michael Manns commentary on how video DOF can actually enhance story. Highly recommended inerview!
Also, David Lynchs Inland Empire was shot on a Sony PD150. The video-esk DOF added a kind of clostrophobic atmosphere to the story that really worked for me.
I think shallow DOF is great for leading the audience to the key subject/object in a scene or story but as you said its a great tool and not paramount.

Wow, thanks for the comments! Great advice all around. I'm sort of getting back in to the game, having gone to film school and graduating in the late 90's, and through 2001 running my own production & fashion photography company. Computers & the web got a hold of me, and though I've kept up with things more or less, I'm ready to get back in to the pro side again.

So, I'm gathering that no one has come up with a clear technical reason for the difference in how video looks versus film. I always thought interlacing was a key factor, but until now, I never had my hands on something that could shoot progressive. My EX1 should be here tomorrow, and I am going to be shooting so much test footage! I can't wait. The Glidecam 4000 should be here soon enough as well :)

My first upcoming job is shooting an independent TV pilot in NY. The final destination (for shopping around) will be DVD. I've read that shooting 30p will convert well to 60i for DVD; truth or fiction?

well one of the biggest differences between film and video is related to light response and exposure latitude. that and budget in my opinion are the biggest factors in the difference between film and video. if you know what you are doing, you can fake DOF ok, shoot 24fps, adjust your shutter and color grade for film look. exposure latitude (with very little exception) in video is always going to look like video latitude, not film latitude. EX1 likely has under 10 stops of latitude. film stocks often have around 14 stops from what i understand. and the cost of film is also such that as much as you might want your work to look like film, if you are doing that, you probably dont have the money to shoot on film and do not have the budget to spend a lot of money on lenses, lighting, set design, hollywood-style camera movements, etc. it seems to me that when it comes down to it, the majority of the things we see shot on film are generally much higher budget than those we see shot on video, especially with cameras like the EX1. and that contributes to the disparity between film/video looks as well...

oh and yeah 30p converts very well to 60i since 30p played at 60i looks like 30p, but then 24p looks great on DVD as well considering the majority of the big feature film DVDs we see originate as 24fps.

a decent article on the 24p thing and getting a more filmic look...
will only take a couple minutes to read

http://www.larryjordan.biz/articles/lj_range_war.html

Why 24p
 

The reason I shoot 24p is because it is an international format. Pal DVD players in Europe will play back 24fps movies.

When we had to do a film out from 60i (shot with a Z1 pre 24fps hdv), I was told to NEVER shoot 30p because you can not convert 30p to film or to PAL and have it look natural. It's possible you might have trouble getting a film shot 30p distributed for this reason. Also going from 24 to 25fps seems to "feel" better than going 25 to 24fps.

If you don't ever plan to show your work outside of a 60 cycle country then 30p is for sure a better way to shoot, and as long as you do not have interlacing - this will not effect your film look scenario.

All that said, 60p may be the best of all worlds because you theoretically could turn it into anything but it would make file sizes and frame by frame efx work 2.5x larger.

The search for "film look" involves deciding what it is. Many people are convinced that it is in "film cadence" of 24 fps and in limited DOF. In my view film at 60 fps would still possess that film look, because the look is everything to do with film and how it records images. First of all, it is analogue and tones and colours vary continuously, rather than in digital increments. Then it has an equivalent bit depth of 12 bits on projection and around 22 in camera, and it's 4:4:4 all the way. So it records subtle variations in colour, so important in rendering skin tones and we immediately recognise when those graduations are missing or coarsely recorded. Then in video we get artifacts like edge sharpening, used to make unsharp images appear sharper, inability to handle normal subject brightness (burnt out clouds), and so on.
So when you look at a "movie" do you decide that it was shot on film or on video by its DOF? If so, Citizen Kane will fool you. Do you check whether the pans are smooth? I doubt it. You check the quality of the images, which is the reason people above have emphasized lighting, dynamic range and turning off artificial sharpening.
Video cameras are getting better and that film look is within reach of anyone who understands that "the look" is not about mechanics such as 24 fps. Incidentally, the Academy recommended scenic pan speed for 24 fps at 180 deg shutter is not faster than 7 seconds for an object to cross the screen; good thing to remember.

I agree that film look is not clearly defined and that DOF has little to do with it (I think DOF boxes are pretty but not that important). I also question the need to achieve a "film look" on a video camera as an overriding goal, except in special circumstances (when referring to another era, for example).

But cadence is a huge part of what people perceive as the film look (I say it's 90% of it). Even with horrible digital satellite compression and a vastly limited, digitized color space, a movie still looks like a movie when broadcast and does not look like sports or the evening news. This is because of frame rate. Even when broadcast in America at 60i, the 24 frame time sampling is visible in the form of 3-2 pulldown. And 3-2 pulldown is an awful looking thing - but it's what transmits the "film look."

With the advent of telecine and modern telecine artisits, the coloration of film as broadcast has no set standard. Dynamic ranges are limited, blacks crushed, skies blown out, hues completely changed etc. and as long as the source is film (or well shot video) at 24fps, the results still "look like film" as opposed to video.

And If you have ever seen film shot and projected at 60 frames per second (as a film print without any digital intermediate or processing) as with the Showscan format, you'd be amazed at how much it looks "like video." Only the dust and dirt that fly by onscreen detract from the look. Gradation of color has little to do with it.

An amazing difference between Serena's and Eric's post demonstrates just how much fun this all is. Regardless of who has the better argument 24p on the EX1 with the rolling shutter has a lot of issues. My current project is in 24p but it will be the last. I'm 30p from now on. Zooms and pans and leaves blowing in the wind are a problem with 24p, at least to me. I think color graduation is the thing and it can be done. Look at the Yosemite clips under the climbing thread. To me, that looks exactly like film.

Mike, do you really think these beautiful scenes would loose their "filmish" appeal if they were shot in 24p?

While I am far from saying that 24p (or 25p in my case) alone is going to render my shooting film-like, I strongly tend to agree that higher framerates (50i or 50p in my case, as we don't use 30/60 in PAL) do indeed contribute to the definitely video-ish look.

Also, when avoiding fast movements, following my subject, and blurring the background I have no problems with stutter at 25p at all. Especially when displayed on a 100 Hz plasma.

I'll jump in here since Mike is making reference to my Yosemite stuff. I don't think that I tried to achieve a film look on purpose. What I wanted to do was shoot as clean an image as possible at the highest resolution. I used a polarizer on the lens, but did all the work in post. When shooting my goal (shooting 1080p30) was to have as slow pans as possible. No zooms at all. Use DOF to my advantage. I kept the f-stop around F4 when possible. Some times it was wide open. Also use your composition to make sure that the shot doesn't look flat. I am not talking about color but depth. Does that make sense? It 's funny what different people like. I loaded the same clip up on the Exposure Room site and one of the guys there ripped it as looking like video. He also didn't like the Magic Bullet. To each his own.

That brings up my final point. What one person calls a "film look", another person may not like. The key should always be, good composition, good exposure, great subject matter and tell a story.

Daniel Weber

Daniel,

Yes, I think that "film look" is an empty goal, except as a special effect.

The qualities we associate with good filmmaking should be the goal, whether or not the result actually "looks like film."

Amen.

If a shooter wants to use "film like" as a term for producing top notch, high quality images that stand apart from regular "video", then that is great.

We should always strive to produce the best we can. And if it takes a "film look" to do it then so be it. Just don't let a "look" get in the way of telling the story or what ever goal your project has.

Good discussion.

Daniel Weber

I think here we're talking about "how can I identify whether material is film or video?" Sometimes I think the argument is based on old technology versus new technology, which seems a bit unproductive because there is a great deal in favour of video as a technology. People wanting to fake an obvious look of film use low frame rates, add scratches and dirt, uneven exposure, and so on. The audience assumes that this is old film. Similarly if your main identifier is frame rate on otherwise well shot material, then you may check out the cadence. So if these are the characteristics of the look of film, why would they be desirable? People argue that it is because these are characteristics of films seen in cinemas, and therefore this must be the difference between what they shoot and what wins Oscars. Personally I like film for the characteristics I mentioned above and it is those characteristics that I found so lacking in video when I changed, for reasons of production costs, from shooting 16mm neg. I've grown up with 24 fps and I don't associate that with a film look. Possibly what one watched as a child has a great influence, and if your first influences were video then probably you come at the question from a different viewpoint. To start with, you're used to lousy image quality.
Anyway, the EX1 is the first video camera I've actually owned that has the capabilities for giving me the look I want. I'm perfectly happy for people to guess whether it's sourced on film or video; that's not of interest to me. Much of Phil Bloom's output possesses that "film look", and I haven't noticed what frame rate he uses. Yes, he employs restricted DOF, as an aid to composition and artistry. But you'll be aware that there is growing technical interest, associated with 3D, among DPs for highly enhanced depth of field, involving merging several images focused at different depths (already used in stills). I like to keep myself aware that equipment is an aid and not the essence of artistry.
The only point in discussing this question is to discourage people going up expensive and unproductive blind alleys in pursuit of ill-defined outcomes. It is important to understand the goals, even if there isn't universal agreement on how to get there. So there is a good reason for being thoughtful about the nature of that holy grail and in being very open in discussion.

I've been reading posts and pronouncements about what constitutes the "film look" ever since the Pana DVX100 was introduced. The conversation has hardly changed over this time, which suggests to me that it's largely in the eye of the beholder. I suspect there is no ultimate truth to be discovered about this.
To me, Daniel's Yosemite clip is a case in point. They are beautiful shots for the reasons he outlines. The EX1 seems to be a tool that, at 1080 HQ, can provide the detail, subtle color, depth, and dynamic range, regardless of frame rate, to make images that look like they "might" have been shot on 35mm film, certainly much closer to film quality than previous small cams. If you can frame a beautiful well lit shot, you can set up the EX1 to record a beautiful rich image. My theory is that if you are presenting your audience with beautiful photography, only a few are going to be wondering about it's framerate or origin. Actually, my best audience responses have always come from programs that have had the capacity to suck the viewer into the story big time. Never mind details of the image quality, shaky hand held shots, blown out hi-lites, etc. It had more to do with editing, script, and a good audio track than about photographic excellence. Personally, since acquiring the EX1 I have begun to really focus on the details of image quality because the payoff is so big with this camera.
But, film,or not film... I dunno...

Robert,

Funny you mention the DVX100. The first thing I ever shot with that camera was a short spot that we took the time to light correctly. It was shot at 24p (not 24PA) and the CC work was done in Magic Bullet.

I had people swear I shot it with 16mm film. What made it was a combination of lighting, the Magic Bullet "look" and the cadence of the 24p image. It just didn't look like "video".

Again, nothing beats correctly, composed, exposed and edited series of shots. When the viewer is focused on what it happening in front of them and getting the point of what you are trying to "sell". Then you have done your job.

Daniel Weber

Daniel
Well, that seems to be the story of my 24p life. People like you (who must actually know what they are doing) dip into a 24p project and get great results. Every time I try it (from the DVX100 to the EX1) it always looks like bad 15 fps video, and it never, never looks anything like a Hollywood movie.
Part of it is that I shoot a lot of run & gun action/event type of stuff which is probably not suited for 24 fps. But obviously it can be done- look at all the people shooting PAL everyday (24 fps-25 fps: hardly a difference) for every kind of market and delivery format.
My shameful secret: I think 60i looks great!- but don't tell anyone.

Robert,

Yes 24p was not meant for action footage. That is what 60i or 720p60 is for. Trying to cover event stuff with 24p can be frustrating. 24p looks great when doing interviews or dramatic stuff. You can still do things with 60i to make it look more "film like". Keep working at it.

I have been shooting for more than 17 years (man I suddenly feel old!!) and every day I try to learn something new.

Keep at it!!!

Daniel Weber

Daniel, it is as you say: learning something, or several things every day. That's why these forums have been a blessing for me. I started about 12 years ago when cheap DV videocams became avalible, and editing could be sort of accomplished with ordinary desktop computers. We moved up to Sony PD 150s, but the emphasis was always on just getting the shot, and enough coverage to have some editing choices. We were always doing long form projects (45-60 min). Doing great photography didn't play much of a role; content was king. But now these cameras are so fanrtastic, with just a little knowledge and attention you can do really good photography. When we moved to HDV in 2006, the days of sloppy shooting started being over. HD was much less tolerant of our lapses- the standards were being lifted. I saw a presentation at Sundance by Jody Eldred, shot with the EX1. It was beautiful and brilliant. I realized that this small affordable camera was capable of producing the highest level of professional product with very little in the way of compromise. Since I got the EX1 I have started shooting short "music" videos (3-6 min.) for the first time, just for fun and to learn how to use every feature of the camera to try and capture the kind of "beauty shots" that were previously out of reach, except by accident. It's quite an education for me, and quite pleasureable to be placing emphasis on the details of the photography itself for a change. And the payoff is so immediate and evident on a 50" HD screen. Sometimes absolutely breathtaking.
There is a lot to learn, but I feel like I'm at the edge of a new frontier.

Funny you should say that. I was a professional still photographer before getting in to video. One of the first big photo assignments I did after getting out of photo school was a 3 month shoot in the Dominican Republic. (Believe me I wasn't on the beach all the time!!) A video crew went along to document the project I was working on. The video guys knew little or cared little about composition or photography. We very quickly butted heads. It got so bad that we had to start going out at different times. At that point I hated video guys because all they wanted to do was roll the camera without thinking about what they were shooting. To me, video shooters were not photographers.

Then about 5 years later I got into video and found out that some of the best video shooters had started out as still photographers. To me that made sense. Every time you fire up a camera, your brain should start focusing on the composition and sequencing of your shots. People tell me that I shoot from unique angles and get shots that others don't get. I really think that comes from my photography background and my always pre-visualizing the shot before I even put the camera up to my eye.

Keep at it. Learning how to be creative with your video work is so much fun!!! I wish that more people put an emphasis on it.

Daniel Weber

well said daniel.
loved the yosemite piece!

What Daniel says may be in the nature of the beast. When I shoot stills I take a long time. I kneel down, I stand on rocks, I play with DOF, I look at all the angles. When I shoot video I really have to force myself from not pressing that button then looking through the view finder! Maybe it is because video cameras have more controls or are just heavy and bulky. A good plan is to leave the video cam off and make that frame with your fingers and pretend you have your old F3 round you neck and take a few minutes absorbing the scene before you touch the EX1. I'm trying hard to do that and it helps.

Another issue is that when taking still you work alone without pressure. Video guys are often in a team with the boom man getting his arms tired or the focus puller is getting thirsty.

d e l e t e d

Daniel, you and I have similar backgrounds. I was a Film major when I was in college but I veered off into Photojournalism and eventually into Commercial Photography. I've stayed with it for my entire career. However, with the ability now to do video for a fraction of the cost of the "old days", I've come back to video because my clients have been asking me to provide it for their web sites. I feel like I can now work with another part of my brain but apply all the skills (composition and lighting, especially) that I've developed in my years of still photography. I'm only hoping that the EX1 can rise up to meet my expectations instead of frustrating me with all its' little problems.

All those 'little problems' can be extremely frustrating, if you look for them and let them get in your way. Best to rely on your raw talents as a shooter/ photographer/ designer and use the tools. Dont let the tools drive you insane.

Embrace your constraints.

I hear 'ya, Andrew. "A good carpenter never blames his tools for a poor job". I'm a firm believer in that. However, after having the camera for only two weeks, I had to send it back (last Friday) because of the paint coming off AND finding dirt and crap inside the lens. I could have continued using the camera despite the paint wear but the schmutz inside the lens was appearing on my images. It also had some CA and IR issues.

I've known guys who would always complain about not being able to do a job well until they could buy this or that attachment or lens. That's why I'm so frustrated with this camera at this point. I can see its' potential and I'm very excited to be using it.....if only I can keep it here with me for more than TWO WEEKS!

I've used the EX1 since January and I love it.

My background is shooting film, so I do shoot for the look I like, which is mostly 7248 color negative film.

I shoot using these settings:

24P
1/48th second shutter
-3db gain (with sufficient light)
picture profile adjusted to one of the cine settings
a warmer white balance than the default
a warming polarizer
a graduated filter for over-exposed skies
lens at a longer focal length (if I'm after less DOF)

I'm having a great time using the camera and I highly recommend it.

Good luck,

Steve

Sorry about the dust and schmutz and CA and IR woes, but thats all fixable; and in the long run you'll have a lot more good experiences with the camera. I can tell you this, my dead LCD and EVF are a distant memory.

As for chipping paint, I'm ok with that, kinda like Stevie Ray Vaughan's Fender Strat with years of good use. (but years, not weeks)

I just wish I had more time to get out and shoot.

@Mims - nice setup - seems you have your ideal and are going for it. Look forward to seeing some shots.

sound sound advice. very much what I do. have you got any clips to post anywhere? hOW DO YOU EXPOSE? mY BIG PROBLEM IS THAT i AM ALWAYS UNDEREXPOSING??????

Mike, that's hard to answer without seeing what you're doing, and knowing what you call under-exposure. Are you using the histogram and brightness reading?

I'd be curious to know what method most people here use to set their exposure. I've been using the Zebra 1 function but raised the default level from 70 to 95 or 98.

Changing the Zebra 1 setting from its default 70% to 9x % prevents you from using it as designed, i.e. to control proper exposure of (Caucasian) skin tones.

Therefore, I am using Zebra 2 at its only setting (100%), and just observe that it doesn't appear anywhere except for small areas of pure white objects (not the sky - it's never pure white, and should not generate the zebra) - unless properly exposing the foreground but backlit objects is my priority.

When it's people faces that are important, I engage Both zebras.

So far so good.

Thanks for that Piotr. This will be the first camera that I've had that provided two levels of Zebra. As soon as it gets back from Sony Service, I'll do as you suggest and utilize both levels.

Another important note:
Zebra 1 is +-10% of the level set.
Zebra 2 displays patter for the video level OVER 100%

Setting Zebra 1 to 100% is (+-10%) is not the same as using Zebra 2 (which is over only).

Setting Zebra 1 to 100 would be 90-110 range (109 max actually)
Zebra 2 is 100+ only.

That's assuming the manual and my interpretation of it is correct. See page 41.

Another way of looking at it. Zebra 1 set to 100 might kick in at 90 whereas Zebra 2 won't kick in until you hit 100.

Just to be clear also Zebra 2 is locked at 100 (not programable). Given the way the menu functions some people mistakenly believe Zebra 2 is programmable.

Absolutely correct, Craig! The Zebra 1 actually covering a range rather than threshold, I should have mentioned it in my opinion against using it instead of Zebra 2.