THE "Film look" - what IS it?

[Lee Maisel]

I have invested in the sony HDR-FX1, have really gotten into the film making mood, and have some other small mini DV cams, and thought a quality camera with more control and features would help me.

 

I can't really put my finger on exactly WHAT makes "film" look like film... but what can I do to get close to those results?

 

The thing is, I know a lot of productions are using HD now, and the results look more like a "movie" than a hard "video" look. How is this done?

 

Video seems "hard edged" to me as opposed to film, what am I missing? What processing can i do in FCP HD to get that film look?

 

Thanks!

[John Pytlak RIP]

I can't really put my finger on exactly WHAT makes "film" look like film... but what can I do to get close to those results? 

 

 

Thanks!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The easiest way is to USE FILM! B)

[Lee Maisel]

The easiest way is to USE FILM!  B)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

LOL I would guess so! hehe But... I have what I have...

[John Pytlak RIP]

LOL  I would guess so! hehe  But...  I have what I have...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Don't let that mistake hold you back, as you can always rent a film camera. ;)

 

Super-16 can be a very competitive option, and the "film look" is built in:

 

http://www.kodak.com/go/16mm

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

John you deserve a serious pay rise.

 

Lee, there are many different things that make film look like film as opposed to video.

 

Are you talking about how video looks really fast paced? If so, then it's the difference between taking 2 frames and interpolating them together (producing a 50fps look, called interlaced), or taking just one single shot (Progressive scan)

 

Interlaced is where you take 2 pictures, one slightly later than the other, and then use one line of resolution with the first frame you took, and then fill in the second line of resolution with the second frame, third line with the 1st frame, 4th line with 2nd frame, and you carry the pattern on. Progressive scan on the other hand is when the camera takes one single shot (frame), creating more of a film look.

 

There are many other elements which define film from video, but interlaced and progressive scan are the main things that people notice.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

If you can afford to, shoot film, but look into what?s involved first. On a shoot I'm doing I was considering film, (and sorry to say this John) but then I chose HD, 1. cost. 2. editing is somewhat cheaper, easier and more forgiving 3. A monkey could operate the camera with 5 mins training (so I'm ok) 4. The ability to watch the scene directly after I have shot it

 

Naturally there are disadvantages though. (i.e. shadow detail e.t.c. won't come out as nice)

[Stephen Williams]

.... I chose HD, ....2. editing is somewhat cheaper.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

You can edit film with a splicer and tape! I can't think of a cheaper way to edit!

 

Stephen Williams DoP

Zurich Switzerland

 

www.stephenw.com

[John Sprung]

Film has a much larger image area than video, therefore shallower and more controllable depth of field.

 

Film has more resolution than video

 

Film makes 24 complete coherent images per second, not 50 or 60 interlaced fields.

 

Film has more dynamic range and a gentle rolloff into the shoulder and toe instead of a hard clip

 

Film gives you more subtle and accurate color and wider gamut.

 

The Genesis and D-20 generation of digital cameras are coming real close to matching that look.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

You can edit film with a splicer and tape! I can't think of a cheaper way to edit!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeh but then try adding titles, or try re-cutting it later one once you find out you didn't like it that way. (It's also very time consuming)

 

Film has a much larger image area than video, therefore shallower and more controllable depth of field.

True, but in low light conditions your forced to use shallow focus, unless you use a higher ISO but that just leaves you with grain. With digital you can leave it on 1.8 and still get a good amount of DOF.

 

Film has more resolution than video

You'd probably only see the benefits in cinema, aslong as you didn't do a DI which would kick it down to 2k anyway, unless you did 4k, which is just out of the question in most peoples cases.

 

Film makes 24 complete coherent images per second, not 50 or 60 interlaced fields.

Yeh but there are plenty of video cameras that do it also. With the good cameras you get the choice.

 

 

Of course, we'd all like to use film, for it's quality advantages, but then again look at the disadvantages. George Lucas used the HDW900 to shoot episode 2, if it's good enough for him, then it's good enough for me.

Peter Jackson shot with film but then edited all his footage and manipulated it digitally.

Edited March 3, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Lee Maisel]

. George Lucas used the HDW900 to shoot episode 2, if it's good enough for him, then it's good enough for me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

YES I had heard that, and that camera is just a step up from the one I bought supposedly. SO, my question is... HOW did he get the "film look" using a HD camera?

 

VIdeo just looks like video to me no matter what I do. I have softened it a little and that does help, but what am I missing?

 

THanks!

[John Pytlak RIP]

George Lucas used the HDW900 to shoot episode 2, if it's good enough for him, then it's good enough for me.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry, I personally did not like the "look" of Episode II. :( Some of the live action material really had artifacts, and most never really looked sharp. Even on the DVD release, the CGI often looks sharper than any live action.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think one of the negative things about video that you are responding to is edge enhancement ("Detail"), the artficial sharpening used by video to make up for a lack of resolution. With high-end HD cameras, the resolution is high enough that you can turn off all the edge enhancement circuitry if you want. Edge enhancement adds an artificial black line around bright edges, and white lines around dark edges.

 

Another thing may be interlaced-scan capture, often at 50 or 60 fields per second, compared to progressive scan capture at 24, 25, or 30 frames per second.

 

There are many other image characteristics of video that also make it look different than 35mm film, like the extra depth of field from using small CCD's, the inability to hold detail in very bright areas of the frame, compression artifacts, limited color depth, lack of grain (not necessarily a bad thing, but then, neither is a deep focus image always a bad thing), etc. Everyone defines a "film look" differently, for some it is motion artifacts, for others edge enhancement, for others depth of field... you sort of have to decide what you personally want to minimize about the video look.

[Stephen Williams]

Yeh but then try adding titles, or try re-cutting it later one once you find out you didn't like it that way. (It's also very time consuming)

 

You'd probably only see the benefits in cinema, aslong as you didn't do a DI which would kick it down to 2k anyway, unless you did 4k, which is just out of the question in most peoples cases.

 

.

Of course, we'd all like to use film,

 

.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

You can shoot titles very easily for film:-

a) put the titles on glass and shoot through the glass. Then you get the titles and live action in 1 Pass.

b) wind the film back and double expose the titles

 

If you have ever seen a Spirit telecine of 35mm film onto DigiBeta you would know that the benefits of film are seen on television. Thats why most commercials are made on film!

 

If you really do want to shoot film why not get a Bolex and learn how to use it. If you just want to practice lighting the film look then buy an old manuel SLR, if thats too expensive then a Kodak throw away camera will work! It does not have to be expensive to work with film.

 

Stephen

[Sam Wells]

Sorry, I personally did not like the "look" of Episode II.  :(  Some of the live action material really had artifacts, and most never really looked sharp.  Even on the DVD release, the CGI often looks sharper than any live action.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It looked considerably sharper, but the most jarring (or jar-jarring) thing was the lensless look of the CGI intercut with the photographed footage.

 

-Sam

[Sam Wells]

Why not work toward getting the best video look you can from that camera, do some good work, do something that conveys ideas visually. Then you can choose film itself in the future if you want to.

 

-Sam

[Landon D. Parks]

If you really do want to shoot film why not get a Bolex and learn how to use it. If you just want to practice lighting the film look then buy an old manuel SLR, if thats too expensive then a Kodak throw away camera will work! It does not have to be expensive to work with film.

This is true. You can get a cheap camera, get film stock donated to you, get the lab to get you a REALLY good deal and you can shoot on film for, sometimes cheaper then what It would cost to shoot video.

 

Personally, my only fear about film is how to light it? When you see "making of's" you always see the put a huge ton of light into a scene that in the final film looks really dark. It seems to me it should be like this "If it looks good with my eye, thats the way the film will see it". But I think thats pretty false.

 

But I guess you could get some motion picture film for your SLR, and you can play with the light till you see how much light it takes to expose film the right amount.

[Stephen Williams]

Personally, my only fear about film is how to light it? ............/... It seems to me it should be like this "If it looks good with my eye, thats the way the film will see it". But I think thats pretty false.

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I find I light film and video in a very similar way. I think its much easier and quicker to get a good result with film. The way I judge exposure is with a light meter and using experiance to interpret the reading, to get the look I want. I know just by looking through the viewfinder of a film camera how the film will look.

 

Stephen

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> You can edit film with a splicer and tape! I can't think of a cheaper way to edit!

 

By the time you've had even a fairly short production workprinted and all the soundtracks made, you'll have long paid for the desktop computer.

 

Phil

[Landon D. Parks]

Yeah, you can pretty much offline an film on a home PC, so long as you have enough hard disk space and a program capable of generating an EDL.

 

My computer at home could do it! It cost me $600 on sell. $850 was the MSRP.

 

Got a P4 w/ HT, 1GB DDR RAM, 400GB HDD, Firewaire, USB, Nice video card, ect.

Edited March 3, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

 

> You can edit film with a splicer and tape! I can't think of a cheaper way to edit!

 

By the time you've had even a fairly short production workprinted and all the soundtracks made, you'll have long paid for the desktop computer.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Phil,

 

I know DI is getting cheaper . But when film for projection is needed, a film cut and A/B printing is the cheapest option.

 

Stephen

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Depends if you can get workprints made for less than the cost of telecine.

 

Phil

[Michael Nash]

Personally, my only fear about film is how to light it? When you see "making of's" you always see the put a huge ton of light into a scene that in the final film looks really dark. It seems to me it should be like this "If it looks good with my eye, thats the way the film will see it". But I think thats pretty false.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The exposure difference between the "making of" footage and the final film has nothing to do with the format! It's just the way the images were exposed. ENG video footage is usually exposed to be "normal" (middle of the scale), whereas the film footage is exposed wherever it's dramatically correct (not to mention what happens to it in color correction).

 

Modern film stocks have the same sensitivity range as modern video cameras (anywhere from 200 to 500+ ASA). You don't necessarily need any more light for film than you do for video, depending on the stock you choose.

 

And some of the newer, softer-gamma'd stocks do photograph close to what your eye sees, although that may not always be what you want. Whether you're shooting film or video, you get used to "seeing" what your format of choice will record.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Modern film stocks have the same sensitivity range as modern video cameras (anywhere from 200 to 500+ ASA). You don't necessarily need any more light for film than you do for video, depending on the stock you choose.

But generally you don't need as much light for video because of the huge amount of DOF. i.e. I can set my video camera to the lowest aperture and still obtain a descent amount of DOF. With video you can use ultra-fast lenses that may give you the DOF characteristics of 35mm, and at the same time you will have massive amounts of light to play around with.

 

So, theoretically video is more sensitive.

 

You can shoot titles very easily for film:-

a) put the titles on glass and shoot through the glass. Then you get the titles and live action in 1 Pass.

B) wind the film back and double expose the titles

Not as easy as doing it digitally, and with digital you can play with special effects (Easily)

Edited March 3, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> And some of the newer, softer-gamma'd stocks...

 

I think that might be part of the problem. I shot a whole load of stills on very fast film - that makeup test, I posted some here - and it looked great, if grainy. That 16mm I shot looked like someone had wound the black level up to about 40%.

 

Phil

[David Mullen ASC]

But generally you don't need as much light for video because of the huge amount of DOF. i.e. I can set my video camera to the lowest aperture and still obtain a descent amount of DOF. With video you can use ultra-fast lenses that may give you the DOF characteristics of 35mm, and at the same time you will have massive amounts of light to play around with.

 

So, theoretically video is more sensitive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're talking out of your a---

 

The extra depth of field of a smaller target area compared to 35mm doesn't mean that the smaller format is more sensitive, only that it has more depth of field. You're heading down a slippery slope of being a sloppy thinker if you're going to confuse two separate issues like that. Don't go there. You might as well be arguing that 16mm is more sensitive to light than 35mm, even when you use the same film stock, since it also has more depth of field!

 

However, I would argue that in really low light levels, gain-boosted digital tends to see more into shadows than push-processed film because pushing increases contrast, whereas gain-boosting doesn't. Plus with video cameras, you have the option of turning off the shutter and gaining more exposure. But that's not the same thing as base sensitivity. Don't mix up concepts so freely.