Define/Quantify Film Look
 

Has this community taken a stab at defining and quantifying what is meant by "film look"?

I know all the posts in this section are about "film look", but my searches been unable to find a succinct definition. If this has already been done, please excuse my post, and point me to the appropriate thread.

I guess what I'm looking for, and what might be useful to many people, is a succinct definition of "film look" that quantifies to the degree possible exactly what attributes would a video need to have to look like film. Think of it like design requirements. If you were going to build a video camera, and there were no technology limits, what standards would you use to develop your design, and then test your prototype against? I'm talking about the attributes of a film, not the features of any particular camera.

Another way of thinking about it is what would you want to tell aspiring filmmakers and film school students who can't afford film? What definitions would you give so that one can select the most appropriate production and post-production equipment/hardware/software/techniques to achieve the "film look" as best they can within their budget?

I am very much a beginner concerning "film look". Based on what I've been able to gather, here is an example of what I'm looking for:

ATTRIBUTES OF "FILM LOOK"

1. Shallow depth-of-field
2. Soft focus
3. Well saturated colors especially in shadows and dark areas
4. No grain or video noise
5. Proper lighting
6. High quality audio
7. Wide-screen format
8. 24 fps
...

Please correct me where I have stated anything incorrectly or improperly. I have stated these in NO particular order. Perhaps when we get done, a ranking of order of importance to achieving the "film look" could be done.

Of course, it goes without saying, you need a good story, good script, and good actors. But this is true regardless of the technology one uses to produce a motion picture.

So I propose that we collaborate to develop these attributes, define them in some detail, and then, with the permission of Mr. Hurd, post these as a sticky at the top of this forum.

At this point, I will bow out and defer to those of you who have much greater experience in this area than I.

I completely feel the same way. I've been reading all the posts in this forum trying to come up with a good list of criteria that one could go by to say, "if you include these factors in your workflows (pre-prod-post), your video will look more like film."

Your list is a good start and I hope that it garners a lot of constructive discussion that stays on topic.

And please, no one say that we should just shoot on film. This is a dv forum, not a film forum.

"No Grain"?

I think one of the charming characteristics of film, is the grain. Various emullsions have greater or lesser ammounts, but it's always present. So, I would redifine that element of your list.

There's probably two practical definitions of film look you need to care about:
1- Professional world: Producers decide to shoot on video to save money, but find that the footage doesn't look as good as film.
2- Amateur world: I don't have enough money to shoot film but still want my footage to look good.

Reasons why film looks better (in no particular order):
Non-technical:
A- Film implies bigger budgets.
B- Psychological? You spent a lot of money on film, it better damn well look good.
C- DOPs have a lot of experience shooting it. / Nearly all the good DOPs know how to shoot film.
D- Personal bias towards film for whatever reason (i.e. they shot bad looking video, they like to be an old-timer, whatever).

Technical:
A- Much greater exposure latitude. For same results with video, you have to light important picture detail into the right exposure range.
B- Resolution. For television, I don't think this matters too much.
C- Highlight handling: Video has color shifts for almost-highlights (just before clipping hits). Look at skies, or lighted areas which blow out/clip in the middle- these areas will have color shifts on the fringes. 24 (at least season two) is a good example- for the CTU interiors, some of the floor areas where the spotlights hit them are messed up. The affects the practical latitude range for video.
D- Film has grain. Sometimes considered good when it adds grittiness.
E- Film doesn't have video noise.
F- Different gamma response- increases overall color saturation (depends on luminance/brightness) and overall contrast.
G- (assinine?) The different emulsion layers of film have different sharpness/focus.
H- Lack of video-specific artifacts. Stair-stepping. Digital compression artifacts or analog artifacts. Vertical streaking. (1CCD cameras: false colors)
I- Different color gamut.
J- Does not have excessive edge sharpening, which a lot of video cameras will apply by default.
K- Film is 24p, whereas video is usually 60i.

If you shoot video really well, probably A B D and E will really concern you (under technical).

There actually have been an incredible number of discussions on just this subject here, but it's understandable that they would be hard to find over the wealth of posts in the last few years. Here's one that bears more than a striking resemblance to this thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3659

I think the tricky part about this discussion is at a certain point, verbiage doesn't do the medium justice. One person considers film to be "sharper" than video, which it is, another might think it looks "softer" (because it feelssofter). Certain attributes like 24p vs 60i are definitely quantifiable factors; I don't think I've yet heard of anyone considering 60i as looking more filmlike than 24p. In fact, I consider that to be the primary, top of the list characteristic.

For me, they fall in this order:

1. 24p (see #3 for a related item)

2. The way highlights gradually 'fade' out in film vs. hard clipping in video (this one is HUGE, and often overlooked) This is the important part of the 'S' curve everyone talks about. In fact, it may be beneficial to not use both sides of the S, as that tends to crush the blacks, sacrificing shadow detail.

(less important below)

3. Slightly more motion blur (1/48th shutter vs. 1/60th or less)

4. Shallow DOF. Not required, but when it's there it really makes for a filmic feel. Not appropriate for all shots.

5. _presence_ of the tiniest amount of grain. This adds (for me at least) to the film quality.

6. Color saturation. The best way to fix this is to use enough light in the first place. I can't quantify it, but I feel like bright saturated source which is carefully 'desaturated' has a different (and more filmic) quality from source which is desaturated due to a lack of light.

I appreciate this thread as well and have often wondered what a person means when they refer to a film look.

We had a client as if we could do a "film look" but we had to define it for them. Sometimes what people want with the film look is the old projector Super 8 home movie look with scratches and dust.

I'm very new to this but what I do in trying to create a film look is:

1. Shoot at 1/30 sec (Optura Xi). It gives a psuedo progressive deinterlaced look.
2. Shallow depth of field when appropriate.
3. Add a little grain in post

My biggest hang up with grain is that it can really bog down and lower your MPEG encoding for DVD. Encoding noise takes a lot of processing power and data that could be better used elsewhere.

<<<-- Originally posted by Charles Papert : There actually have been an incredible number of discussions on just this subject here, but it's understandable that they would be hard to find over the wealth of posts in the last few years. -->>>

Charles,

I was sure there had to be many posts on this subject, I just couldn't figure out the key words to search on.

This is the main reason I'd like to see DVInfo.net post the results of our discussion as a new message with a sticky so it stays on top for all to readily see.

Thank you for your comments. I expect there to be some (much?) debate about what constitutes a good film look. After all, filmmaking is an art, and great artists can disagree about what looks good.

But perhaps there is a core set of attributes that most can agree on. Like the 24p you mentioned.

One interesting approach would be to identify what attributes make the viewer aware that the motion picture is a video rather than a film.

Best Regards,
Pete

HI,

NIce thread, PEter WIllie! WE all want to have that film look. We all want to become the next steven spielberg. YOu must understand one thing. A consumer cam will NEVER create that film-look. Even profesionals can't fix that cause of the lack of the recorded picture quality. (garbage in=garbage out). You can add grain, change the S-curve, add more blurring motion, use a MINI35.....but....very hard. If you use a semi-pro/pro model like dvx/xl2 and future models which can b e shot progresively, you CAN create something film-like. YOu need to record with lots of light. Glenn Chan gave a great summary of what the film look is. YOU need lots of lighting to caputure every detail.

And I think other things are very important for movies.

1) sound editing (you need to know how to edit sound, Don't use your audio editing function within Adobe premier or vegas. They suck deep and are very limiting. You need to change EQ, add compression, echo, reverb and other minor details like mixing layers and I am talking about 8 audio layers sometimes such as wind, background, special effects 1, special effects 2, vocal 1, vocal 2, vocal over etc etc...every track of audio should be mixed and taken care of profesionally. People always thing that audio is inferior, but it isn't . I can hear in 10 seconds if the movie is profesional or amateur. Tons of examples on the dv masses thread.

2) motion blurring. Move yoru cam from left to right and your shot is likely shaky, even if you use a tripod. This can be easily be fixed in adobe after effects. Even if people move around, you see the video-look. SO very important to add motion blurring. See forum for tons of threads over this subject.


Hope this helped.

2)

For all those who think yu can't make film-look like material with video, WATCH THIS. I am one fo those who think you can do a lot with digital video. WHY? Read this.

-----
excerpt from source: http://www.7mpictures.com/inside/reviews/mexico_review.htm
----

One of the most notable things about “Once Upon a Time In Mexico” from a filmmaking standpoint is that this is one of the first movies to be shot on the same high definition 24p digital video cameras used for “Star Wars: Episode 2.” (It was actually finished shooting in 2001, but held for 2 years for release.)

Supposedly, Rodriguez used “Once Upon a Time In Mexico” to push the limits of the new digital cameras, experimenting with lenses, filters and frame rates. To his credit, he did an excellent job with this. Many of the scenes really look like film, and there were only two shots in which the video image appreciatively broke down (and both of those were in extremely wide, deep shots). Sure, there are still video artifacting in hot spots on the image, but overall this movie could be an advertisement for the 24p digital video camera.

Give me a break! I dare anyone to call up David Tattersall, the director of photography on the new “Star Wars” films, and tell him he isn’t a real filmmaker because he didn’t shoot the movie on actual film. Heck, I’m a professional writer, but by this standard, I haven’t technically “written” anything in years. I use a computer, so why don’t people demand that I call myself a typer or a word processor?

Just call it a film, Rob, and get on with your career. In my experience from dealing with independent filmmakers, the only folks that really make a big deal about this sort of thing are talentless hacks who use the fact that they shoot on film as a replacement for quality in their product.

The bottom line is that Robert Rodriguez had the budget to shoot on either film or video. It was his choice. Many independents would love to shoot on film but just can’t afford it. And if they choose video for budgetary reasons, they sure as heck ain’t gonna afford the same gear that Rodriguez had on this $30 million “flick.” A Sony Handycam isn’t gonna cut it. The proper video equipment, filters, lenses and shooting experience is going to cost the independent filmmaker a chunk of c

What is Desirable frame rate??
 

Please see the following thread JVC Previews NEW Pro HD Camera Specs to Select AVR Resellers beginning approximately with the post by Ron Evans on March 21 concerning the desirability of shooting a motion picture at 24fps. It would appear that some believe the quality of motion pictures would be better if shot at a higher frame rate.

Is film shot at 24fps for aesthetic reasons, or mostly because of tradition and technology (most film cameras shoot only at 24 fps)? Perhaps cost is also a factor -- film shot at a higher frame rate would be more costly, and of course it would be very costly to manufacturer and purchase new cameras that run at a higher, optional, frame rate.

I'm going to try to find an article written many years ago by Roger Ebert that succintly desribed the difference between 24fps (in a theater) and watching TV (interlaced video). It was mainly about the psychological differences (with projected film having a more positive impact on the mind, putting the viewers in a meta state or something). The problem is...with the new JVC, we are still talking about watching TV.

Film makers are often at cross purposes with videographers.

Film makers deliberately conceal from the viewer while trying to convey the subject matter. An example is when a figure steps into the frame from beside the camera. Another is when zoomed tight on the terrified face of the victim, the concealed killer with a knife emerges from immediately behind. Shadows and lighting and quick scene changes are used to conceal, not illuminate. The film maker doesn't want unimportant details to distract from his subject. It's drama.

Videographers on the other hand, are trying not to conceal but to reveal. Reveal the colors of a chamelion on a sunny rock, reveal the nuances of a rainbow, capture the panorama of the Grand Canyon, or the smells and sounds of race cars on pit lane.

60fps conveys the airy live presence for video to reveal all the details in the frame, not only the subject but the background.

24fps gives the director the option of controlling texture while keeping the viewer's attention focused on the subject, and not distracted by details not relevant to his message.

I want to state a few things that I never see mentioned (and a couple that have been but I still think are more important than people tend to think) that, whilst not necessarily all related, are all factors in the difference between film and video images.

1) Grain is rarely visible in a film, unless shot on 16mm or projected to a massive size (this ties in to point 2). Wanna check? Watch a DVD copy of any major 35mm film - how much grain can you see on your nice big 40" TV? That's right - none!

2) Grain IS important! But adding it to video won't help any... The advantage of grain structure in film over pixel structure in video is that grain is randomly distibuted throughout each frame (as the emulsion is simply painted onto the celluloid). Pixels, on the other hand are always neatly arranged in rows. The effect of this is to alter the perception of resolution when projected (taking into account the persistance of vision), as the pixels can literally be seen (even on a small scale digital projection) due to their constant rendering in the exact same place, whereas with film the grain moves with each frame, creating a higher effective resolution over a few frames. Thi also helps acount for the "softer" look of film, despite it's higher resolution. It is organic and analogue in it's nature.

3) Higher exposure latitude, as someone here mentioned earlier. This doesn't get nearly as much attention dedicated to it as it should. It can be "faked" to a certain extent by shooting very tight latitudes and then crushing the image in post to gain an approximation of the "S" curve gamma of film.

4) Even more important is the clipping issue, again as mentioned earlier. This also can be resolved by the solution to (3), but there is a look to film that burns out or drops to black that cannot (at least with current post processes) be effectively recreated, and this certainly limits you as a DoP in your artistic abilities - see films like "Usual Suspects" for fantastic use of over-exposure or "The Third Man" (what a classic!!) for great usage of black and near-black details.

5) Last, and imho, definitely least is this damned 24p business. Don't get me wrong, it's a great tool to have at your disposal, but it's not much different from 25p, or even 30p folks! Also, it seems there are a lot of new filmmakers out there who think that buying a camera that shoots 24p will give them "that film look". No chance. It will help give your film the MOTION CHARACTERISTICS of film, but it won't change the look of one still image a jot. Fact. Good, well suited Lighting, use of DOF if possible/suitable and clever post-processing will go a lot further to acheiving a film look than shooting at 24p.

Oh, BTW - great point Tom. The above is certainly as viewed from a "film-makers" POV, as most of what is mentioned is probably exactly what videographers would want to avoid!

<<<-- Originally posted by Dominic Jones
> 1) Grain is rarely visible in a film...
> 2) Grain IS important! The advantage of grain structure in film
> over pixel structure in video is that grain is randomly distibuted
> throughout each frame(...)This also helps acount for
> the "softer" look of film, despite it's higher resolution.
> It is organic and analogue in its nature.

Dominic hit very important points.

> 3) Higher exposure latitude, as someone here mentioned
> earlier...

That's right, video is still unable to handle the highest contrasts
between highlights and lowlights of a picture. that's why your
video exposure has to fall somehow in the middle of the scale.
Lighting the scenes properly is key to achieve (compensate,
simulate) any exposure effect in post production.

I should emphasize that film gamma and picture softening are
as important.

Film often has a very "warm" tone to it,
as opposed to video, which can look quite "cool".
So provided that the footage/scenes were lit adequately
you should be able to achieve this color look in post.

Picture softening can be done thru camera electronics,
optical diffusion or with filters in post.

> 5) Last, and imho, definitely least is this damned 24p
> business. Don't get me wrong, it's a great tool to have
> at your disposal, but it's not much different from 25p,
> or even 30p folks! Also, it seems there are a lot of new
> filmmakers out there who think that buying a camera
> that shoots 24p will give them "that film look".
> No chance....

Hmmm..I have to agree and disagree here.

24p by itself won't make your video look like film,
you'll need to do the above first among other things.

24p and 30i look very different. In fact 30i, looks like 60p
to the human eye. This makes video motion much smoother
and more like watching the real world. Film, on the other hand,
strobes slightly on the horizontal plane.

Juan Parra
Cinetech Productions
www.cinetech.ca

Great stuff!

I think that video has a very definite "edge" to it, which makes itself evident mostly at the sub-conscious level, but it is like a subtle boarder around each object... not found in film.

I also think that the jaggies are going to be around for a while and are quite offensive :-(

Pete , I've taken you up on your offer. I want to point out that I do not consider myself a guru in these matters and for all I say, please interpret as ' in my humble opinion'.

Firstly, I consider nothing quite approaches the majestic quality of a projected moving image. So when folks speak of filmlook I assume they are referring to a telecined version of a film as found on DVD played back through a television or projector.

There are many parameters to discuss and unfortunately they have to be addressed from a technical standpoint, I personally would like to see more discussion on psychological aspects and I hope this thread moves into that arena.

For now I wish to touch on two areas - temporal qualities and something which in my mind is very important - focal length.

temporal qualities

theres no escaping the flat fact that motion pictures are screened at 24 frames per second. But what does this mean? It means that unless you pay careful attention to best cinematographic practice you will get strobing. For me strobing is not good, when I go to see a movie I am making a contract with the Director/Producer to 'suspend all disbelief' for the 2-3 hour duration of the movie so when strobing happens my illusion is shattered. For me, the production should be transparent on first viewing - sure its good to review the movie later on DVD to find out 'how did they do that?'.

The very best productions have no strobing and the techniques used to avoid it enforce a pace or cadence on the production. The enforced cadence has a seductive quality which helps with the 'suspension of disbelief'. To illustrate this consider the car chase in Bullet versus that in Bad Boys II. To my mind Bullet has respect for the cadence of 24p whilst BBII even though technically superior does not and would be ideal as an IMAX production. I believe Bullet - whereas I dont believe BBII even though it is a fantastic spectacle and exciting to watch.

Another question we should be asking is that if I play a DVD on my computer of my favourite movie filmed to best cinematographic practice and then I switch it to play 2x normal speed does is suddenly start to look like video? Well all I can say is that PowerDVD gives smooth playblack on my PC at 48p and it doesnt look like video to me.

I conclude from this that if you want the cadence of 24p then arrange your production values accordingly - shooting at 25p or 30p will not change the look. An analogy for this is as follows - 2 soundmen record the sound of a gong (less than 10k frequency response) - soundman 1 records at 12 bit 32Khz 0db, whereas soundman 2 records at 16 bit 48Khz -24db, question is which sounds better? They both will sound identical.

24p is essential when blowing up for film release, however digital cinema is here and spreading so 30p is fine so long as you film with respect for 24p cadence.

focal length

Video is often decribed as vivid, reality-show , immediate, in yer face etc,, whereas Film is often described as dreamy, fantasy, flat, distant etc,, I personally put this down to focal length as this is what determines the depth of the scene.

We have all seen variation of the dolly and zoom camera move. The shot usually starts at wide angle (short focal length) with the camera close on the talents face and the dolly moves back but the camera zooms in (long focal length) to keep the talents face the same height in the frame. At pinhole apertures there is a weird effect on the background which appears to come seeping out of the talents ears as the talent appears to be pushed back flat against the background, with large apertures the background appears to dissappear into a fog of Bokeh. In the first case you are seeing the telephoto effect and in the second case you are seeing the short depth of field effect. I consider long focal length to be associated with the dreamy far away look, wheras short focal length is real and vivid.

When 8mm cameras were first marketed later superceded by super8, the intention was to provide consumers with a device which would capture magic family momemts etc. The focal lengths in use provide a sense of being there even when projected and viewed 40 years later. The focal lengths for 1/3 CCD camcorders are similar to Super8 but are 4-5 times shorter than those used in the movies. This is why I consider super8 although most definitely film does not approach the look of a 35mm movie.

Choice of focal length in concert with composition has an immense psychological impact on the look and perception of a movie. It is a subject in its own right and could never be done justice in a small thread as this. Bear this in mind if you want your movie to look real use focal lengths near to the human eye (~16mm) if you want a more dreamy look use longer lenses.

There are many examples of cameramen being sacked on set for using the wrong focal length - Stanley Kubrick being a tough cookie in this respect.

I think film look is just a progressive image rather than interlaced (deinterlaced image doesn't cut it).

Juan, good to see someone else who understands!!

In reference to your final point, I'd like to point out that my post said 30p is not too different from 24p, not 30i, which is certainly *very* different!

However, your statement is completely correct - used with the above techniques 24p will certainly add to the "filmicness" (sic!) of the video...

Your points about lighting to allow for a "simulation" of film gamma are spot on, to boot. (Interestingly, this differs in approach between DV and HDCam - it will be interesting to see where HDV lies in this equation).

John: Fine points about the differing use of camera due to 24p as regards narrative supsension of disbelief, and again an important "phsycological quality" point...

Patrick: I'm sorry, but I simply cannot agree on either front. 24p is far from the be-all-and-end-all of film look, and in fact clever de-interlacing can and has (for many years) been used to transfer excellently to film, particularly (but not exclusively) from 50i - I challenge all but the very best to take the "pepsi challenge" between 24p and 50i-25p presentations viewed in RT (predominantly as the vertical resolution of a still image (de-interlaced well) is identical to a native progressive frame, and the eye's resolving power is lessened the more movement (and therefore the greater drop in vertical resolution) there is per frame).

There's a point that most, if not all, people seem to miss and I have been trying to address for some time.

I think it would be important to make a distinction between 'film look', and 'movie look' or 'movie feel'. Since the terminology hasn't been defined (and I'm not stating that mine is right, just using the one I feel suitable), people keep using the same term for two different things.

I mean, if you give a monkey (a real one) a 35mm camera, and have him walk about all day and shoot whatever he is looking at, the footage will still have a 'film look'. That's because it WAS shot on film, it's not going to look like video in the slightest. Will it look like a home-made production or worse? Oh yes, but that only gives it an amateur look. It's still film, even with no post.

And if we switch things around, have Clint Eastwood and Cate Blanchet on your production being shot with a $500 miniDV camera, even if you lit things properly and have a great script and sound, with no post it will still look like video.

I really don't think that sound or lighting has anything to do with filmic look, it just makes things look professional.

So, IMO, there's actually two debates: Film look vs Video look (which is essentially a 'what camera & media was used' issue), and Professional look vs Amateur (or home made) look (which is a movie production issue).

Of course both this things are related, but speaking of them as if they were the same just leads to confusion.

So, in relation to my post right above, here are two lists of what I feel define both debates. I'm sure I'll miss something, so let us know what.


Achieving a FILMIC LOOK, ie, as if it were shot with a 35mm or any camera that uses film (pellicle). All this characteristcs are inherent to these cameras:

1 - 24p
2 - Gamma curves and color latitude.
3 - Shallow depth-of-field
4 - Fine grain
5 - Best CCD possible, HD even better.
6 - Anamorphic aspect ratio, although this is more a 'cinema' issue rather than film. I've seen documentaries on TV shot in 16mm 4:3 aspect ratio, and they didn't look like video in the slightest.

Achieving a PROFESSIONAL PRODUCTION QUALITY, similar to the ones we see in Hollywood movies:

1 - Proper lighting
2 - High quality sound
3 - Good script
4 - Good actors
5 - Good framing & general cameraman work.
6 - Extra camera gear (cranes, etc.), make-up, sets.

<<<-- Originally posted by Dominic Jones : Juan, good to see someone else who understands!!


Patrick: I'm sorry, but I simply cannot agree on either front. 24p is far from the be-all-and-end-all of film look, and in fact clever de-interlacing can and has (for many years) been used to transfer excellently to film, particularly (but not exclusively) from 50i - I challenge all but the very best to take the "pepsi challenge" between 24p and 50i-25p presentations viewed in RT (predominantly as the vertical resolution of a still image (de-interlaced well) is identical to a native progressive frame, and the eye's resolving power is lessened the more movement (and therefore the greater drop in vertical resolution) there is per frame). -->>>

I didn't say 24p, just p ;-)

Dave Ferdinand made a much more eloquent post in terms of how I was thinking.

Of all of the things he described as Filmic (as opposed to interlaced stuff) - which I agree with fwiw, the main difference is a progressive image ('clever' interlacing aside) vs. an interlaced image.

Interlaced video with film gamma or film DoF, grain, 16x9 or 2.35:1, etc just looks like 'better' quality video (in a movie / production sense), it doesn't look like progressive film (IMO). Film with poor color/gamma, deep DoF, 4x3, etc with all the hallmarks of video will still look like film.

Basically, other than P or I, the rest are subtleties (again, IMO) that will either enhance or detract from the overall presentation, but won't dictate the heart of what the presentation is.

$.02

Hmm.. Yeah, see what you're saying, fair point as far as "things which cannot be acheived other than through capture hardware" goes (although I stick to my guns on 'clever' deinterlacing ;)...

I still think the latitude and clipping/burning out factors are very important as regards the overall filmic look - remember we're talking about acheiving a "more filmic look" here, rather than differences in the un-graded rushes (or rather, they are what we're trying to correct for).

But certainly shallow DOF and good lighting can and (in the case of lighting) certainly should be applied to both - however what I'm talking about is how to correct for a difference in look between two scenes shot under the same (or similar) lighting conditions on the different media - that, after all, is what counts.

Another factor here is how much people mean "film" look and how much they mean "better look"!! Seems to be something of a grey area!....

As an aside, the film with clint eastwood on MiniDV , brilliantly lit etc etc will be a far better movie!!! We have to remember that at the end of the day this is all just the icing on the (hopefully tasty!) cake...

<<<-- Originally posted by Dave Ferdinand :

> 2 - Gamma curves and color latitude.
> 3 - Shallow depth-of-field

Dave,

I understand what you're trying to say.
However, gamma, latitude and DoF depends
on lighting. If you want to achieve a decent
filmlook you must know how to work with lighting.

How so?

* Film gamma: without good exposure, you won't
get the right gamma colors in post.
* Color latitude: without good exposure you won't
get enough information to simulate the film latitude.
Otherwise your footage will be under or over exposed.
* Shallow DoF: The lighting has to be just right, since you need
the iris to be wide open.

>6 - Anamorphic aspect ratio,
>although this is more a 'cinema' issue rather than film.

I think you meant widescreen.

> Achieving a PROFESSIONAL
> PRODUCTION QUALITY, similar to
> the ones we see in Hollywood movies:

That's also called Production Values.
Wanted or not they're associated with films,
so they are somehow part of a filmlook.

Juan

The issue of film speed has been around for a while. For an interesting article on the pros and cons of a faster film speed, see The Future of Cinema by Deroy Murdock, 01.24.00. Dean Goodhill's MaxiVision 48 projection system is discussed.

I have seen s16mm footage that looks quite videolike.

Mainly it's the motion cadence. I recently had an argument on the DVX forums regarding the difference between 24p video and 24fps film. There is a difference, and I consulted an ex-BBC camera engineer who has specialised in camera setups for filmlook for the past 15 or so years. His setups are used the world over in high def cameras as well as SD ones.

The difference apparently mainly comes from the apparent edginess of video thereby making any strobing much more notceable. Here is the reply I received;
http://www.dvdoctor.net/cgi-bin/ulti...c;f=8;t=003375

Regarding contrast handling, film is much better at handling highlights. Shadow areas however aren't handled much differently. With higher end cameras the highlight rolloff can be precisely controlled to give a smoother transition to the clipping. The clipping of highlights can also be adjusted. So it is possible for higher end cameras such as the DSR570 and above to obtain a much more filmlike highlight response.

Then there is colour in highlight areas. Video tends to lose colour in the highlights. However once again higher end cameras have an adjustment to compensate for this, again making things more filmlike.

Then we come to black levels. Once again higher end cameras can be adjusted to have a much wider contrast ratio and dynamic range. This will make blacks slightly more grey, but many filmlook setups that stretch the blacks such as those recommended by Swiss Effects and the Varicam film gamma are designed for filmout and mimick the way many modern filmstocks work. The image produced is a work in process and is designed to compensate for the extra contrast introduced when performing film transfers. If your footage is staying on video or DVD there prpbably isn't a need to stretch the blacks like this unless you want ultimate control over the contrast in post and are doing heavy colour correction such as adding Magic Bullet to the footage.

Sharpness. You don't want edge ringing from edge enhancement. Higher end cameras have the advantage here again as their detail circuits can be precisely adjusted tto pretty much get rid of all edge halos. You end up with a soft picture as a result, but this can be tweaked in post. When performing a film transfer Swiss Effects has their own recommended settings which do make the picture fairly soft, but they sharpen it up again using their own high end equipment. I will never do a film transfer (not yet anyway) so I have created a setting on my camera that is halfway between the default settings (too sharp) and the Swiss Effects settings (too soft).

Depth of field. Often over used. But for a much more cinematic look trying making shots with out of focus backgrounds (and foregrounds) wider. Too many people go too close to faces to obtain shallow DOF.

I agree!!!

a film look?
 

ok. then, why doesn´t one of you experts in filming or creating a film look put up an aprox. 3 min short where you can show one " before and after" film look (of course after using any software , vegas, premiere , ...)?
Because words are words, and an image is an image.

That´s just a suggestion, and i think will help many people to understand the famous "film look".

Because stills alone can't show you the film look.

Re: a film look?
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Ced : ok. then, why doesn´t one of you experts in filming or creating a film look put up an aprox. 3 min short where you can show one " before and after" film look (of course after using any software , vegas, premiere , ...)?
Because words are words, and an image is an image.

That´s just a suggestion, and i think will help many people to understand the famous "film look". -->>>

This has already been done by an expert.

Check out the short film "Camera" by David Cronenberg

The best film I have seen in years, was What Dreams May Come. I'm not sure if it was shot digitally, or on film, but I suspect it was film. What made it film for me, was the color saturation, which is very hard to get with video... at least for me. For the same reason, I prefer Quicktime over Windows Media.

thanks John Jay
 

where can i find -buy- it?

I searched anf find a "Bridge Short Film and Video Collection"

at http://www.microcinema.com/programResult.php?program_id=268


but, where can i get it?

thanks.

Alex

Contact David Cronenberg through the approved websites and they will steer you to a convenient purchase point

thanks
 

thanks a lot for your help, John.

STOP PRESS
 

Alex

I found a real player version of it here

http://www.filmreferencelibrary.ca/index.asp?navid=92&layid=82&csid2=15&csid=299

clik the play video box

Still its good to get a DVD version for better reference

Re: STOP PRESS
 

<<<-- Originally posted by John Jay : Alex

I found a real player version of it here

http://www.filmreferencelibrary.ca/index.asp?navid=92&layid=82&csid2=15&csid=299

clik the play video box
Still its good to get a DVD version for better reference -->>>

Interesting...

On the same site there is a short called 24fps

http://www.filmreferencelibrary.ca/i...d2=56&csid=299

Depending on your point of view, and how this short reaches you.
It might have something to do with this thread (somehow).

There's another thing that helps giving video a 'filmic' look, I just remembered. That's the bloom, or glow you get on overexposed areas.

Also, another thing was, like Simon pointed out, the reducing of video sharpeness, or edge enhanced as it's called.

Anyway, I had done some tests using my old JVC DVL-357 and remember got some good results using just Premiere 6.

I'll post them here if I manage to find them if anybody's interested. They're just still shots, so the 24p factor (which is IMO the most important to achieve the filmic look) won't be very noticeable, but it's better than nothing! :)

beautiful
 

those films, specially the "camera" one, are beautiful.

Of course, I would like to get the dvd.

You can duplicate a video in premiere and give a gaussian blurr to video 2 and decrease the opacity in the video 1 (in premiere timeline) and you can get beautiful glows... you can play with the gaussian blur and the opacity. Vegas 5.0 also can help you with its sony glow.

O.K., I hope this helps anybody here.
http://apr.imghost.us/lfydp.jpg

That image looks nice.

It's a shame the movies are real player only. I refuse to install it on my machine!

Anyway, here is the little test I talked about. Taking into account it was shot using a consumer camera, it's not too bad.

http://www.geocities.com/headlesspuppy/stuff/compare1.jpg

But of course, film without motion isn't really the same thing...