Getting that "film" look

[Tyler Leisher]

So, I'm shooting a film in HDV 1440x1080p24 footage later this month, last month I shot something on the same camera and settings and the colors came out looking.. bland and.. well.. like video.

 

An example of a few stills:

http://www.leisherproductions.com/dare/dare_01.gif

http://www.leisherproductions.com/dare/dare_02.gif

http://www.leisherproductions.com/dare/dare_03.gif

http://www.leisherproductions.com/dare/dare_04.gif

 

(Ignore the quality of the stills, the footage is 1440x1080p and looks beautiful)

 

Now, I'm curious how you can get that "film look", where the skin tones look better, pretty much all the colors look better.

 

Like this for example:

http://www.celebritywonder.com/mp/2008_Pin...express_001.jpg

 

The skin tones look much better, but at the same time you aren't losing any quality or color in the other parts of the shot...

 

Is this just shooting in high contrast? A lighting issue? Or is this something that I can do in post (In FCP)? Just up the contrast, playing with the levels and whatnot...?

[Tyler Leisher]

Another example is this:

 

My Film: http://a648.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/image...196606b0cdf.jpg

 

Compared to Knocked Up: http://a105.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/image...4d7bf534f98.jpg

 

The colors just look so much more vibrant, while the skin tones and whatnot arent blown out...

[Max Jacoby]

Don't mean to be a smartass, but Knocked Up was shot on film. If one could make video cameras look like film there'd be no point in shooting film anymore, would it?

[Brian Drysdale]

Here's a trailer for "Bull", which was shot on a JVC HD 100.

 

http://www.bullthemovie.com/

 

It looks nicely filmic, but it doesn't look like film. It has a look of its own.

[timHealy]

I always love the "why doesn't my video look like film?" questions.

 

If you really want to make it look like film shoot film. You won't have any problems.

 

If you have to utilize video for budgetary or other reasons there is a lot you can do to take the edge off video. Since your movie is already shot, I would start with some color correction. Your images look flat. You can use color correction to increase contrast, overexpose your whites a little, and you can play around with your colors. That is the first thing you can do to make your images a little more snappier. But it will not look like pure film.

 

Best

 

Tim

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Color Correction goes a loonngg way to helping out any project. Also, on HDV, keeping whites from clipping, as with any video, when you're recording is imperative.

[Saul Rodgar]

I always love the "why doesn't my video look like film?" questions.

 

If you really want to make it look like film shoot film. You won't have any problems.

 

Tim

 

That's what I say, but people keep on trucking about it . . .

 

Want real FILM look? Shoot real FILM!

[Tyler Leisher]

I guess I should've said how can I make my images look better.. its not so much that I want it to look like it was shot on film so much that I just want it to look more pleasing and less bland.

 

If color correction is the way to go, thats fine, I wasnt sure if it was a post production thing or something we could do during production.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

It's both.

You have to record the best images you can day of, and then you tweak later on in color correction.

For HDV/Video i recommend shooting a flatly as you can; as you can build in contrast later on in post by choosing what to crush and setting curves. Also, keep your whites from over-exposing as once it clips, it clips for good.

Use good lighting and composition as best you can and soften things up a bit in camera (sometimes a light diffusion filter will really help; a lot!) Also, stay away from super-harsh lighting. Even if you want/need hard light, I find some light diffusion will help with that (this is just me of course).

 

And embrace your medium. Deep DoF is a interesting effect of smaller chip cameras, so use that, keep things interesting in the fore, middle, and back-ground. Now, most video doesn't do too well in low/no light, so when you're shooting at night, keeep contrast but stay away from gain! Use the built in ND filters for shooting bright daylight and wait till the sun renders a pleasing side-light, not so toppy look. When you can't do that, stretch some white sheets or something to diffuse the sun and use reflectors/bounce board/ white card, to key and fill in shadows.

 

Then, once you do all this, you'll have very nice images, one hopes, with which you can play a bit in color correction. Even just taking thoer .gifs into Photoshop and applying a "curve" helped them out considerably over here.

[Phil Rhodes]

Glib answers to "how do I make it look like n":

 

- Shoot it the same way n was shot. To wit:

- "In order to make it look green like The Matrix, shoot green objects."

 

- Hire someone who knows what they're doing, give this personsome money, and say:

- "Make it look like n!"

 

- Research how n was shot, and replicate the technique:

- "I need four Musco lights and a crew of 70!"

 

- Figure out how to approximate n's approach using alternate techniques:

- "I need to make my HDV shot with a sun flood and a lastolite look like Saving Private Ryan - I need a colorist!"

 

- Realise that you have sunk to "fix it in post", and return to:

- "Shoot it the same way n was shot!"

 

P

[nick lines]

hi,

 

you should always do some sort of color correction. I took the liberty of doing some adjustments to your image. I have no idea what kind of style your going for, so this is just a simple grade. Depending on what your trying to achieve in this shot, you could brighten the gun mans eyes, or highlight the gun more.

 

I think its best to try and get what you can on the day, and then clean it up in post. Don't ever be afraid of doing "post" work, its one of the most important aspects of film making......as far as im concerned :)

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38283616@N00/2752399937/

 

 

good luck

[nick lines]

wrong link

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38283616@N00/2753326680/

[Keith Walters]

- Hire someone who knows what they're doing, give this personsome money, and say:

- "Make it look like n!"

Same ol' same ol'...

If you could afford a crew who can actually do that, you can probably afford film as well.

Or a nice Sony camera at the very least.

 

And nice men with nice big trucks full of nice big lights and nice grip stuff

And nice lenses

And a decent scriptwriter

And a nice shooting script where everything just happens when you say "action" and you don't have to come back weeks later to do pickup shots because some arsehole forgot something and the crack-whore-in-rehab continuity girl you hired cheap didn't notice either.

And a decent caterer

And a decent hairdresser

And a decent wardrobe master/mistress/whatever

And lots of nice people who build nice sets out of plywood and junk rather than blowing the budget building McMansions.

And a nice accountant who makes sure everybody gets paid

And a nice video assist operator whose experience does not turn out to be limited to working one day a week at the local blockbuster during the school holidays.

And to top it all off, a nice trio of petite blonde girls with ponytails and tight black jeans carrying clipboards (I've never found out what they actually do, but they seem to be a fixture of big-budget commercials :lol: )

 

Oh yes, a few people who aren't ugly, can act, and can remember their lines without resorting to profanities would be nice too.

 

It all falls into place.

[Keith Walters]

Don't mean to be a smartass, but Knocked Up was shot on film. If one could make video cameras look like film there'd be no point in shooting film anymore, would it?

No, that's just a smokescreen created by all the old farts who are determined to keep young film makers from ever getting their foot in the door, because you're terrified that once important people see all these young, hip and enthusiastic video shooters, they'll overlook their complete lack of talent and experience and hire them instead of you.

 

But seriously, it's funny to actually hear people talking like that, (on you-know-where) despite the fact that virtually every other aspect of film and TV post-production has changed beyond recognition over the last decade, all thanks to the availability of cheap computers, but gee, for some reason you still insist on using film cameras. So what does that tell them? Something they'd rather not hear?

Of course not. It's just a little niche that nobody else has noticed :lol:

[Stephen Williams]

It's just a little niche that nobody else has noticed :lol:

 

Hi Keith,

 

It's a little niche I noticed in the summer of 2000, at the time I was mainly shooting on DigiBeta. I was trying to cut a showreel & realized the work I did 15 years earlier on 7240VNF looked better than DigiBeta, let alone the stuff I shot on 7247/8

 

Stephen

[K Borowski]

No, that's just a smokescreen created by all the old farts who are determined to keep young film makers from ever getting their foot in the door, because you're terrified that once important people see all these young, hip and enthusiastic video shooters, they'll overlook their complete lack of talent and experience and hire them instead of you.

 

Keith, you've completely opened up my eyes! There's a real "revolution" taking place that will allow everyone to make livings in filmmaking!

 

Come on, give film a little more credit than that.

 

Stephen, I honestly miss 7240 a little bit. It's predecessor, the ME-4 stuff in "When We Left the Earth" looks pretty damned good almost 40 yrs. later.

 

Too bad Kodak doesn't offer all of its current E-6 stocks in 16mm. Reversal has a very nice look, very different from negative, snappier, punchier.

[Keith Walters]

Keith, you've completely opened up my eyes! There's a real "revolution" taking place that will allow everyone to make livings in filmmaking!

 

Come on, give film a little more credit than that.

What? :blink:

I give film an enormous amount of credit.

Making an electronic camera that can equal the dynamic capture range of film is simply far beyond our present technological capabilites.

 

The alleged "few" stops difference between present day film stocks and what electronic cameras are capable of, represents the tail end of over 40 years intensive research and development into silicon image sensors. Every extra stop in performance gained represents a disproportionally higher amount of R&D money, until a point is reached where any further investment is likely to cost far more than any likely return, and so the technology reaches a "plateau".

 

The only thing that could change that is some radically new technology, and as far as I am aware, none exists. (Anybody is free to prove me wrong, but only by producing the actual hardware, not more hot air and zealotry).

 

You could perhaps compare this with "rocket science". In 1961 the US managed to launch Alan Shepherd into a sub-orbital hop, (similar to what Burt Rutan's SpaceShip One achieved decades later). Eight years later there were Americans on the moon. Nearly 40 years after that, where are the moon bases, orbiting hotels etc? Now NASA is even talking about retiring the Space Shuttles and reverting to the 1960s "disposable" rocket technologies.

 

Film gives a better and more predictable picture than electronic cameras. Some people badly need to get over this. Others badly need to define what constitutes a "good" picture, which is not in general by definition something they shot (or feel they could have shot) :lol:

 

None of this means you can't shoot a successful project on video, just that it can never reach its full image potential.

 

My opinion? Of course. Also the opinion of most of the people who hold the purse strings...

[Keith Walters]

Hi Keith,

 

It's a little niche I noticed in the summer of 2000, at the time I was mainly shooting on DigiBeta. I was trying to cut a showreel & realized the work I did 15 years earlier on 7240VNF looked better than DigiBeta, let alone the stuff I shot on 7247/8

 

Stephen

 

You, and quite a few other people I know :lol:

Most of them started out as video camera operators for TV stations, who took a punt of a second-hand SRII or IIC and never looked back.

Edited August 17, 2008 by Keith Walters

[Richard Kelly]

Hi Tyler,

 

I see the film - digital battle is still raging and you are probably finished with your project but I did want to throw in a few thoughts. There is a concensus that flat lighting video gives you more options in post and I'm sure it does but I like to light video with the best HD monitor I can find hooked up to the camera and then light the picture until you see what you want. Make sure not to actually clip bright areas that you may want to seem blown out in the finished picture or crush blacks to the point that there is no detail left. I also like to use a 35mm adapter and 35mm SLR primes to get the shallow depth of field that helps acheive the "film look". This frame is out of the camera before color correction.

 

 

I am currently testing the new Convergent Design Flash HD Recorder. It accepts an incoming HD-SDI video signal with optional audio and timecode, compresses the video/audio to MPEG-2 (using a Sony codec) at up to 160Mbps 4:2:2, and stores to Compact Flash (or outputs over FireWire or ASI). I'm hoping the extra bit rate (less compression) will allow for more color space and a little more "film look". (Not used on this frame.)

 

If I had the money I'd use film but I don't so I try to make my picture look as much like film as I can so I can still make the movies that I wouldn't be able to make if I had to use film. :blink:

[Benson Marks]

If you want your movie to look like film, shoot on film. Film looks like film. Digital videotape, no matter how much you try, looks like digital videotape. Need I say more?

[Richard Kelly]

1) If you want your movie to look like film, shoot on film.

 

It's not in the budget.

 

2) Film looks like film.

 

I agree.

 

3) Digital videotape, no matter how much you try, looks like digital videotape.

 

Are you are saying that an ASC member using a Panavision Genesis cannot shoot a project that looks more like it was originated on film than someone?s single chip recording of their child's birthday party?

 

I disagree.

 

4) Need I say more?

 

I think the original poster requested advice from the group on how to make his project look better and more " film like". Almost every book written on filmmaking addresses exactly that topic so I feel like "film looks like film" maybe isn't the very best answer this group has to offer someone with a legitimate question.

 

So my answer to #4 is maybe we should listen more.

[John Allen]

I totally agree. Could everyone on this forum start answering helpfully to questions instead of just trying to say how they would do it a different way, please just answer the questions asked. Anyway that's how I feel about it. Hopefully my answer will be helpful and isn't an echo from someone else.

 

Ok so here's my two bits. First of all you should always shoot with 24 fps(1/48th), because film is shot on 24 fps. That's pretty obvious.

 

A DOF adapter is also a must.

 

Next, you can try and lower the saturation in editing, which seems to help a little. Also, crushing the blacks a little adds a nice contrasted look, which makes it look a little more like film.

 

Another technique in editing is to do a little bit of a bleach bypass. To learn how to do that, I'm sure there's a video on youtube, but also keep in mind not to go too extreme with it unless you're going for a war look.

 

There are plenty of of techniques that are useful depending on the style your going for. Also, learning more about different film stocks is very helpful too. Kodak.com has tech pictures for a great number of widely used stocks.

 

Good luck! :)

[Benson Marks]

Richard, read this from filmmaking.net, the question is the same as the kid is asking.

 

"The short answer to this rather repetitive question is simple. If you want your movie to look like film, then shoot it on film.

 

Whilst there are many products out there that can approximate a film look, not one of them currently stack up against the real thing. Film is film, video is video. The very way in which the image is captured is so different between the two mediums, you will possibly never be able to get an exact match. Benedict Thienpont provides this brief overview of the key differences:

 

'Technically speaking, video is capturing in RGB, meaning the picture is effectively captured using three cameras in one: one sensitive to red light, another to green light, and a third to blue light. This is very close to the way our eyes see. We also have sensitive cells for red, blue, and green light plus cells that are sensitive to light in general (These are most effective to see in darker environments, when we see less the colour aspect of the light). So what we see on video covers greatly our own experience of vision. In video reproduction there are 25 or 30 still pictures passing through per second to create the illusion of motion. During recording each still picture was created as the view is being scanned from top to bottom from left to right in a weaving manner.

 

What happens to film is the light being captured in CMYK, sort of the same principle used in quadri print production. There are four photosensitive layers on the film. One for the magenta coloured elements in the viewed picture, one for the yellow, one for the cyan, and a fourth for light strength in general. The fourth one is especially for dark areas and good light contrast. Actually the charm of film reproduction is in the fact there's an error in colour. Not all colours are reproduced and shifted. The overall result is warmer. In film reproduction there are 24 still pictures passing through to create the illusion of motion. During recording each still picture was being scanned in one shot just like an ordinary Kodak camera does.'

 

Of course, there are now quite a few commercial products on the market for use in post-production to help approximate a "film look." These normally take the form of plug-ins for post-production applications such as Adobe Premiere, Final Cut Pro, and After Effects, and have got much better over the years. The leading products for approximating the look of film in a video are Digieffects CineLook, BigFX FilmFX and Red Giant Magic Bullet Suite. All of these products and plug-ins for popular NLEs and FX packages such as Adobe Premiere Pro, Avid Xpress, Final Cut Pro, and Adobe After Effects.

 

But remember, these will not give you the same results as shooting on the real thing. And don't forget that lighting will ultimately have a far greater impact on the finished look of your film than shooting format."

[Richard Kelly]

I think that is a great answer.

 

Nothing-quite looks as good as film so if you really want the look of film then you need to shoot film. But, if you have to shoot video and still want it to look as "film like" as possible try this, and that, and the other thing. I also agree that lighting is more important than format. Some of my early film projects look a lot worse than some of my more recent video work, and the difference is lighting (now I own a 3ton light & grip package)

Edited October 21, 2008 by Richard Kelly

[Frank Barrera]

i recommend shooting a flatly as you can; as you can build in contrast later on in post by choosing what to crush and setting curves.

really? is this what you meant to say? "as flatly as you can"? this is misleading. if someone was to just light a scene flat that was meant to be low key they would not be able to magically create a high contrast look in post. especially in a lousy format like mini dv or hdv.

 

you need to light your scene exactly as you wish it to appear and then yes add some fill light so that you can control some contrast and crush the black levels if desired in post. but lighting flat will only render a flat image.