"filmlook vs. professional-look" -- Most filmlook arguments here are wrong

Zac Stein · October 31st, 2002, 07:14 AM

Charles i wouldn't say it is impossible to get a shallow depth of field with a dv camera, bloody difficult or a pure fluke but not impossible.

I did it by accident with a single chip panasonic mx3. The light was so bad, i had to push the camera so hard that everything in the background, just past the main actor is completly blurry and out of focus. If i did it again, it most likely wouldn't be achieved but it was that day and looked very nice.

kermie

ps. not saying this is the same as 35mm, just venturing into the same ballpark.

Derrick Begin · October 31st, 2002, 08:17 AM

The two are so different... If you want the film look/feel then lobby people to produce your project, earn the dough, and shoot on 35MM.

Given: Digital Video is economical and is maluable through all kinds of NLE Editors and color correction tools. Create a film-like environment for your story.

If you are shooting for a film-look/professional-look you are missing the target to developing your own style using whatever you have available to you.

I see this going On and On... The subject of filmlook and professional look aesthetics are very subjective. Please post the things you do or adjust to achieve your aesthetic look using facts and your realities.

i.e.

1. I light for film (Using an 3 point lighting system-Arri)
2. XL1S - Set the Gain to -3
3. ...
4. ...
ETC.

This is not to spurn anyone. I am interested in learning what you did with the facts. I could be buying equipment until I am broke and not doing the work. Here today gone/out-of-date tomorrow.

Cheers!

Derrick

Jay Gladwell · October 31st, 2002, 08:36 AM

Derrick--

You made an excellent point.

I read an article, "How to Make Video Look Like Film," in the December issue of DV magazine by cinematographer/videographer and author John Jackman, SMPTE, about this very subject. I would highly recommend it to all.

Now, to address your question--"the things [I] do or adjust to achieve [my] aesthetic look using facts and [my] realities are:

1. Set the gain on my XL1s to -3db.
2. Light for film, using a 3 or 4:1 ratio on the key subject.
3. Worse case (when I have little or no control), I exposure for the highlights and allow the shadows to fall where they will.
3. Use ND filter(s) to aid in reduction of DoF, allowing for wider aperture.
4. When shooting people, I use the Tiffen Black F/X .5 filter.
When shooting all else, I use the Tiffen Soft F/X 1 filter.
5. I "cheat" the white balance by using a graduated series of pale, blue cards to "warm" the image, depending on "feel" I'm trying to achieve.
6. After shooting, I deinterlace the footage using DVFilm.

And I might add it is an every changing process, trying new things and attemtping to fine tune it constantly.

Hope this helps.

Chris Hurd · October 31st, 2002, 08:46 AM

Charles: << I will tell you that I saw a couple of clips at NAB that I am fairly convinced that, had I not been informed as to how they were shot, I would have believed to be 35mm originated. >>

I remember watching those with you at the booth at NAB. I think this is one of those clips. It's a 40 megabyte download which should play fine in a Quicktime viewer.

www.dvinfo.net/media/mini35/Familienrevier.mpg

Robert Knecht Schmidt · October 31st, 2002, 09:05 AM

Well, it looks nice. Lots of video noise in the images. I guess they weren't shooting at -3 dB.

Jay Gladwell · October 31st, 2002, 09:26 AM

Robert--

My guess is that those artifacts came in during the compression process. It looks that way, anyhow.

Robert Knecht Schmidt · October 31st, 2002, 09:31 AM

It could be. The noise looks to me to be the random noise associated with CCD transduction and not the macroblock or mosquito noise common to video encoding algorithms, but without knowing the details of the codec, I can't be sure.

Chris Hurd · October 31st, 2002, 09:56 AM

Just a quick note, I went through this thread and stripped out an off-topic metadiscussion that was polluting the conversation here. This caused some folks' posts to be edited and others to be deleted entirely. However nothing has been changed regarding the original focus of the thread; due to its length some streamlining was in order. My apologies for any inconvenience or ruffled feathers. If you have an issue with this, please contact me off the board at chris@dvinfo.net -- at some point I'll come back in and yank this notice as well. Thanks, and now back to our regular programming.

Josh Bass · October 31st, 2002, 12:30 PM

One thing you guys keep mentioning that I don't understand: three point lighting. I thought this referrered to one (maybe the occasional two-) person interviews. Key light, fill light, back light. For lighting film style, wouldn't you light as necessary? Splashes on this wall with some type of cookie, a practical here and there, arc sodium (or whatever, I don't know lighting) through the skylight to simulate the moon. Is this still termed "three-point lighting"?

Jay Gladwell · October 31st, 2002, 12:48 PM

Josh--

That's true up to a point. I think the reference used here implies the *basics*. If you were to look at most lighting setups, be they on a sound stage or on location, you would, more than likely, be able to recognize the "key," the "fill," and the "backlight." It might be three lights, it may be thirty, but the end result is the same.

Derrick Begin · October 31st, 2002, 01:05 PM

If I had the opportunity to manipulate the enviroment with more lights I would. The three points of light is a better economical route for me. Unless the lighting designer has an awesome design.

Because of the different scenarios that come up. Sometimes I use two lights or even one. Because of a street light, or the sun, or something else might take the place of one or more of the lights mentioned above. It depends... 3 sources... 3 dimensions. Crude, but its what I got.

There is a lot of work maintaining 30 lights as opposed to three. Not very fast which could kill the production. I would paint the scene with all the lights in the world if I could. Simple works better for moi...

I just want some separate distinguished planes that give two dimensions a multi-dimensional feel. At least that is what I am for and improvise the rest...

I'll post some soon... I'm going want your input.

Cheers!

ARRI has a good reference here: http://www.arri.de/infodown/htm/framlig3.htm

Scroll down to LIGHTING HANDBOOK...

Jay Gladwell · October 31st, 2002, 01:31 PM

Derrick--

Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well. I didn't mean to imply that 30 lights were better than 3 or 1. I was just saying even in a complex lighting situation one could recognize the "three points" of lighting.

I agree with your whole-heartedly--less is more!

Vinson Watson · October 31st, 2002, 02:09 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by LHORIZON : The two are so different... If you want the film look/feel then lobby people to produce your project, earn the dough, and shoot on 35MM. -->>>

If it were that easy everyone would do it.

<<<-- Originally posted by LHORIZON : -->>>Given: Digital Video is economical and is maluable through all kinds of NLE Editors and color correction tools. Create a film-like environment for your story. -->>>

Now that's certainly good advice. A pro shoot or a shoot with the prolook is almost never be a bad thing.

<<<-- Originally posted by LHORIZON :If you are shooting for a film-look/professional-look you are missing the target to developing your own style using whatever you have available to you. -->>>

Not true. The point isn't to make your own style (to some maybe it is) but to most people I talk to the point is fun and profit (not to mention hot chicks :) ). Many people doing this are looking to get a film deal or self distribute.

<<<-- Originally posted by LHORIZON : I see this going On and On... The subject of filmlook and professional look aesthetics are very subjective. Please post the things you do or adjust to achieve your aesthetic look using facts and your realities. -->>>

We started out using the old school method of the Promist black 2. It softened the look and my associates said it looked like film but frankly I found that it looked more like soft video than film except in some daylight street shots but even with photofloods it was hard to get anything but a soft look. The look most of us want is that Lucas look (like film without much grain). Asthetically those in the know say it looked like video (the DOF argument and all), the vast majority would never have known the difference. Frankly it's not their job to know or care.

<<<-- Originally posted by LHORIZON : This is not to spurn anyone. I am interested in learning what you did with the facts. I could be buying equipment until I am broke and not doing the work. Here today gone/out-of-date tomorrow. -->>>

We'll I had a friend of mine did drop a line to the guys who did Mommy Raider and there's many shots in there that looked just like film. They said they used Cinelook.

-Vinson

Derrick Begin · October 31st, 2002, 02:11 PM

- - Jay

Your explaination is on the mark and clear. 30 was arbitrary. Meaning after working with seven lights, 30 would give me an absolute headache. Cook and egg and keep my coffee warm on one of them.

I agree with you.

Derrick Begin · October 31st, 2002, 02:30 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by LHORIZON :If you are shooting for a film-look/professional-look you are missing the target to developing your own style using whatever you have available to you. -->>>

<<<<- - ArtStar1: Not true. The point isn't to make your own style (to some maybe it is) but to most people I talk to the point is fun and profit (not to mention hot chicks :) ). Many people doing this are looking to get a film deal or self distribute.>>>>>

Yes, indeed, fun/profit/ and of course smoldering babes. My point regarding this remark was not to sweat it and get on with it with whatever you have. Matching film in general seems to be important, but after reading information about "Blair Witch Project" I am not so sure. However, fixating on it, it becomes an obstacle. I pull the remark, it was my artistic temperment and has nothing to do with the forum. I do think you should develop your own style (look) to distinguish 'you' from the masses.

Cheers!

<<<<---- CHRIS Please omit the superfluous text that doesn't pertain to the forum. Thanks... I got a wee bit carried away.

October 31st, 2002, 08:17 AM	#77
Derrick Begin Major Player Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New York Posts: 329	*** * ON AND ON... * *** The two are so different... If you want the film look/feel then lobby people to produce your project, earn the dough, and shoot on 35MM. Given: Digital Video is economical and is maluable through all kinds of NLE Editors and color correction tools. Create a film-like environment for your story. If you are shooting for a film-look/professional-look you are missing the target to developing your own style using whatever you have available to you. I see this going On and On... The subject of filmlook and professional look aesthetics are very subjective. Please post the things you do or adjust to achieve your aesthetic look using facts and your realities. i.e. 1. I light for film (Using an 3 point lighting system-Arri) 2. XL1S - Set the Gain to -3 3. ... 4. ... ETC. This is not to spurn anyone. I am interested in learning what you did with the facts. I could be buying equipment until I am broke and not doing the work. Here today gone/out-of-date tomorrow. Cheers! Derrick

October 31st, 2002, 08:46 AM	#79
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	Charles: << I will tell you that I saw a couple of clips at NAB that I am fairly convinced that, had I not been informed as to how they were shot, I would have believed to be 35mm originated. >> I remember watching those with you at the booth at NAB. I think this is one of those clips. It's a 40 megabyte download which should play fine in a Quicktime viewer. www.dvinfo.net/media/mini35/Familienrevier.mpg __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

October 31st, 2002, 09:05 AM	#80
Robert Knecht Schmidt Wrangler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,933	Well, it looks nice. Lots of video noise in the images. I guess they weren't shooting at -3 dB. __________________ All the best, Robert K S Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

October 31st, 2002, 09:31 AM	#82
Robert Knecht Schmidt Wrangler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,933	It could be. The noise looks to me to be the random noise associated with CCD transduction and not the macroblock or mosquito noise common to video encoding algorithms, but without knowing the details of the codec, I can't be sure. __________________ All the best, Robert K S Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

October 31st, 2002, 09:56 AM	#83
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	Just a quick note, I went through this thread and stripped out an off-topic metadiscussion that was polluting the conversation here. This caused some folks' posts to be edited and others to be deleted entirely. However nothing has been changed regarding the original focus of the thread; due to its length some streamlining was in order. My apologies for any inconvenience or ruffled feathers. If you have an issue with this, please contact me off the board at chris@dvinfo.net -- at some point I'll come back in and yank this notice as well. Thanks, and now back to our regular programming. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

October 31st, 2002, 07:14 AM	#76
Zac Stein Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 730	Charles i wouldn't say it is impossible to get a shallow depth of field with a dv camera, bloody difficult or a pure fluke but not impossible. I did it by accident with a single chip panasonic mx3. The light was so bad, i had to push the camera so hard that everything in the background, just past the main actor is completly blurry and out of focus. If i did it again, it most likely wouldn't be achieved but it was that day and looked very nice. kermie ps. not saying this is the same as 35mm, just venturing into the same ballpark.

October 31st, 2002, 08:36 AM	#78
Jay Gladwell Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,244	Derrick-- You made an excellent point. I read an article, "How to Make Video Look Like Film," in the December issue of DV magazine by cinematographer/videographer and author John Jackman, SMPTE, about this very subject. I would highly recommend it to all. Now, to address your question--"the things [I] do or adjust to achieve [my] aesthetic look using facts and [my] realities are: 1. Set the gain on my XL1s to -3db. 2. Light for film, using a 3 or 4:1 ratio on the key subject. 3. Worse case (when I have little or no control), I exposure for the highlights and allow the shadows to fall where they will. 3. Use ND filter(s) to aid in reduction of DoF, allowing for wider aperture. 4. When shooting people, I use the Tiffen Black F/X .5 filter. When shooting all else, I use the Tiffen Soft F/X 1 filter. 5. I "cheat" the white balance by using a graduated series of pale, blue cards to "warm" the image, depending on "feel" I'm trying to achieve. 6. After shooting, I deinterlace the footage using DVFilm. And I might add it is an every changing process, trying new things and attemtping to fine tune it constantly. Hope this helps.

October 31st, 2002, 09:26 AM	#81
Jay Gladwell Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,244	Robert-- My guess is that those artifacts came in during the compression process. It looks that way, anyhow.

October 31st, 2002, 12:30 PM	#84
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	One thing you guys keep mentioning that I don't understand: three point lighting. I thought this referrered to one (maybe the occasional two-) person interviews. Key light, fill light, back light. For lighting film style, wouldn't you light as necessary? Splashes on this wall with some type of cookie, a practical here and there, arc sodium (or whatever, I don't know lighting) through the skylight to simulate the moon. Is this still termed "three-point lighting"? __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

October 31st, 2002, 12:48 PM	#85
Jay Gladwell Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,244	Josh-- That's true up to a point. I think the reference used here implies the basics. If you were to look at most lighting setups, be they on a sound stage or on location, you would, more than likely, be able to recognize the "key," the "fill," and the "backlight." It might be three lights, it may be thirty, but the end result is the same.

October 31st, 2002, 01:05 PM	#86
Derrick Begin Major Player Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New York Posts: 329	*** * IF I HAD... * *** If I had the opportunity to manipulate the enviroment with more lights I would. The three points of light is a better economical route for me. Unless the lighting designer has an awesome design. Because of the different scenarios that come up. Sometimes I use two lights or even one. Because of a street light, or the sun, or something else might take the place of one or more of the lights mentioned above. It depends... 3 sources... 3 dimensions. Crude, but its what I got. There is a lot of work maintaining 30 lights as opposed to three. Not very fast which could kill the production. I would paint the scene with all the lights in the world if I could. Simple works better for moi... I just want some separate distinguished planes that give two dimensions a multi-dimensional feel. At least that is what I am for and improvise the rest... I'll post some soon... I'm going want your input. Cheers! ARRI has a good reference here: http://www.arri.de/infodown/htm/framlig3.htm Scroll down to LIGHTING HANDBOOK...

October 31st, 2002, 01:31 PM	#87
Jay Gladwell Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,244	Derrick-- Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well. I didn't mean to imply that 30 lights were better than 3 or 1. I was just saying even in a complex lighting situation one could recognize the "three points" of lighting. I agree with your whole-heartedly--less is more!

October 31st, 2002, 02:09 PM	#88
Vinson Watson Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 79	Re: * * ON AND ON... * * <<<-- Originally posted by LHORIZON : The two are so different... If you want the film look/feel then lobby people to produce your project, earn the dough, and shoot on 35MM. -->>> If it were that easy everyone would do it. <<<-- Originally posted by LHORIZON : -->>>Given: Digital Video is economical and is maluable through all kinds of NLE Editors and color correction tools. Create a film-like environment for your story. -->>> Now that's certainly good advice. A pro shoot or a shoot with the prolook is almost never be a bad thing. <<<-- Originally posted by LHORIZON :If you are shooting for a film-look/professional-look you are missing the target to developing your own style using whatever you have available to you. -->>> Not true. The point isn't to make your own style (to some maybe it is) but to most people I talk to the point is fun and profit (not to mention hot chicks :) ). Many people doing this are looking to get a film deal or self distribute. <<<-- Originally posted by LHORIZON : I see this going On and On... The subject of filmlook and professional look aesthetics are very subjective. Please post the things you do or adjust to achieve your aesthetic look using facts and your realities. -->>> We started out using the old school method of the Promist black 2. It softened the look and my associates said it looked like film but frankly I found that it looked more like soft video than film except in some daylight street shots but even with photofloods it was hard to get anything but a soft look. The look most of us want is that Lucas look (like film without much grain). Asthetically those in the know say it looked like video (the DOF argument and all), the vast majority would never have known the difference. Frankly it's not their job to know or care. <<<-- Originally posted by LHORIZON : This is not to spurn anyone. I am interested in learning what you did with the facts. I could be buying equipment until I am broke and not doing the work. Here today gone/out-of-date tomorrow. -->>> We'll I had a friend of mine did drop a line to the guys who did Mommy Raider and there's many shots in there that looked just like film. They said they used Cinelook. -Vinson

October 31st, 2002, 02:11 PM	#89
Derrick Begin Major Player Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New York Posts: 329	*** * 30 LIGHTS HAR HAR * *** - - Jay Your explaination is on the mark and clear. 30 was arbitrary. Meaning after working with seven lights, 30 would give me an absolute headache. Cook and egg and keep my coffee warm on one of them. I agree with you.

October 31st, 2002, 02:30 PM	#90
Derrick Begin Major Player Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New York Posts: 329	<<<-- Originally posted by LHORIZON :If you are shooting for a film-look/professional-look you are missing the target to developing your own style using whatever you have available to you. -->>> <<<<- - ArtStar1: Not true. The point isn't to make your own style (to some maybe it is) but to most people I talk to the point is fun and profit (not to mention hot chicks :) ). Many people doing this are looking to get a film deal or self distribute.>>>>> Yes, indeed, fun/profit/ and of course smoldering babes. My point regarding this remark was not to sweat it and get on with it with whatever you have. Matching film in general seems to be important, but after reading information about "Blair Witch Project" I am not so sure. However, fixating on it, it becomes an obstacle. I pull the remark, it was my artistic temperment and has nothing to do with the forum. I do think you should develop your own style (look) to distinguish 'you' from the masses. Cheers! <<<<---- CHRIS Please omit the superfluous text that doesn't pertain to the forum. Thanks... I got a wee bit carried away.