THE "Film look" - what IS it?

[Rachel Oliver]

When you get over every difference between video and film (like deph of field and frame rate) you get to that elementary difference between the look of film emulsion and video image.

 

Hi;

 

Since shooting some work on 25p video this statement rings very true to me. The video still seemed to have an inbuilt plastic look to it compared to my film experiences which turned out .... less plastic like. Plastic is the the way I describe it to myself, as if the video world has been wrapped in some kind of super thin, super subtle plastic wrap. And that wrap is gone with film. I would not however say this has been negative on my work, infact the inbetween live video and er not live video look of 25p seems to give narrative a whole new edgy credibility, well new to me anyhow.

 

Olly

[Sam Wells]

But the same "thing" that distinguishes modern film from electronic is the thing that distinguishes 60's film from modern film.

 

And I'm not talking about things like saturation and contrast. both a highly saturated E6 reversal from 90's and a low con negative from 70's have something in common, they both have the film look.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You make a very good point here. Whatever it is, the look of film can't be easliy reduced to even things like dynamic range.

 

I saw Kodachrome 25 printed on 7399 last night that handled highlights and dark textures in a way Sony engineers would trade their firstborn for.

 

-Sam

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> I saw Kodachrome 25 printed on 7399 last night that handled highlights and

> dark textures in a way Sony engineers would trade their firstborn for.

 

No, they'd be heavily criticised for creating such noisy images.

 

Phil

[John Sprung]

The video still seemed to have an inbuilt plastic look to it compared to my film experiences which turned out .... less plastic like. Plastic is the the way I describe it to myself, as if the video world has been wrapped in some kind of super thin, super subtle plastic wrap.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here that's often described as a "greasy" look.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Guest Kai.w]

You make a very good point here. Whatever it is, the look of film can't be easliy reduced to even things like dynamic range.

 

I saw Kodachrome 25 printed on 7399 last night that handled highlights and dark textures in a way Sony engineers would trade their firstborn for.

 

-Sam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Uh... we heard the same sort of arguments about vinyl when the CD came out...

 

 

-k

[Filip Plesha]

Uh... we heard the same sort of arguments about vinyl when the CD came out...

  -k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

These are not "arguments" for shooting on film. It is just a difference in look, and it comes down to what people prefer.

 

And as for vinyl, yea whatever has been said about records still stands because

even when you digitize a record into digital format, it sounds different from a CD.

It's not an argument for vinyl distribution, it is just an interesting difference, that's all.

 

Back to film.

 

I think the plastic and thin look of video is a thing of the past (well and present, but not for long).

Digital image capturing at it's best (slow speed high resolution CCD sensors) looks today like nobody could dream of in the mid 90's, exept guys from NASA perhapse. Take a look at digital medium format photography for example.

It is just a matter of time when video cameras start looking like that.

 

Of course digital capture will never look like film because it isn't film, and because

film look is based on imperfections in light reproduction, a "trade mark" signiture that silver and color coupler technology leaves on the image. In fact this film look that we all recognize is the thing that people at Kodak have been trying to get rid of ever since the first eastmancolor film got out. That is why every new generation of film looks more "fresh" and "modern", which means that it looks closer to reality, closer to how eyes see, and have less of that classic film look.

 

All that any capture medium can ever hope to do is make an image the way human eyes do. And of course human eyes don't have the "film look".

So that is why I say that both film and electronic capture devices will meet in the future, they both are closer to the way human eyes see light every day.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Take a look at digital medium format photography for example.

It is just a matter of time when video cameras start looking like that.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Here are some sample images from Kodak professional digital cameras (14 megapixel):

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona...22.3.20.3&lc=en

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona...mageBride.jhtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona...eImageCat.jhtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona...deLibrary.jhtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona.../portrait.jhtml

[Filip Plesha]

Here are some sample images from Kodak professional digital cameras (14 megapixel):

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona...22.3.20.3&lc=en

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona...mageBride.jhtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona...eImageCat.jhtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona...deLibrary.jhtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona.../portrait.jhtml

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I think those cameras are far from the best what Kodak has to offer right now.

The 22Mp Kodak CCD sensors from Kodak look much better than these CMOS sensors. Those are really state of the art. The only alternative in quality are Dalsa sensors.

 

Here they are:

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/digital/ccd...amilyMain.jhtml

Edited March 9, 2005 by Filip Plesha

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

How good exactly ARE kodak in the pro-digital world?

 

Looking at the images, very good. Although from dealing with their consumer range, I can't say I'm a kodak man.

[Sam Wells]

No, they'd be heavily criticised for creating such noisy images.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I going to have a Howard Dean moment.

 

I stand by my statement B)

 

-Sam

[Sam Wells]

Uh... we heard the same sort of arguments about vinyl when the CD came out...

  -k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No it's not neccesarily a good analogy. MAYBE you could say film highlight response can behave like analog tape saturation. But in the current scenario of most video cameras it would be like comparing to 12 bit audio or something.

 

Our "24 bit audio" model applied to photographic motion imaging is only just starting to happen.

 

-Sam

[John Pytlak RIP]

I recieved a 4Kx4K tiff of the last image, and of some other images from

Imacon, and it looks great at 100%, no artefacts, you can barely see it's

Bayern pattern, and no noise.

 

If you ask me, Kodak is only bad when it saves money. But when you release it of the money-saving leash, it is the best you can find in digital imaging.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The requirements for a consumer digital camera and a professional digital camera are obviously different. You get what you pay for.

 

Yeah, Kodak has some pretty state-of-the-art digital sensor technology, not to mention Kodak image science. And Kodak is not a "new kid on the block" in digital imaging --- Kodak's Bryce Bayer INVENTED "Bayer Filtration" over thirty years ago!:

 

United States Patent  3,971,065 

Bayer  July 20, 1976 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Color imaging array

 

 

Abstract

A sensing array for color imaging includes individual luminance- and chrominance-sensitive elements that are so intermixed that each type of element (i.e., according to sensitivity characteristics) occurs in a repeated pattern with luminance elements dominating the array. Preferably, luminance elements occur at every other element position to provide a relatively high frequency sampling pattern which is uniform in two perpendicular directions (e.g., horizontal and vertical). The chrominance patterns are interlaid therewith and fill the remaining element positions to provide relatively lower frequencies of sampling. In a presently preferred implementation, a mosaic of selectively transmissive filters is superposed in registration with a solid state imaging array having a broad range of light sensitivity, the distribution of filter types in the mosaic being in accordance with the above-described patterns.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inventors:  Bayer; Bryce E. (Rochester, NY) 

Assignee:  Eastman Kodak Company (Rochester, NY) 

Appl. No.:  555477

Filed:  March 5, 1975

[Filip Plesha]

The requirements for a consumer digital camera and a professional digital camera are obviously different.  You get what you pay for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Of course, what I ment to say is that some companies are experts in manuevering in low cost product market , while Kodak shines on professional market.

[Stephen Williams]

Digital video IS the future if you like it or not. There will be a time where video will succeed film in ALL ways.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I remember saying video is the future 25 years ago, but now I'm not so sure. I can still view films I made on 16mm, but the 2 inch video stuff is lost!

 

Stephen Williams

Lighting Cameraman

 

www.stephenw.com

[Scott Larson]

Communicating with others using precise and accurate language is an important skill in filmmaking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think all hope of precise and accurate language in photography was lost when someone said a wide aperature lens is a "fast" lens. :(

[Stephen Williams]

This picture was taken on F5.6.

 

Picture on F5.6

 

And that JUST about get's the subjects head in focus. (Although I appreciate it's a dog, long face, but then again F5.6 isn't exactly small)

 

(200iso Kodak HD - 50mm static lens - F5.6)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Daniel,

 

I have been looking at the American Cinematographers Manuel, comparing Acadamy 185 and Vista Vision 185. Assuming you use the same focal length lens for both formats I think to match your picture's DoF on a motion picture camera would be approx f2.8. or slightly wider. (Assuming your picture was landscape and not portrait )

 

 

Stephen Williams DP

Zurich

 

www.stephenw.com

[Riku Naskali]

I didn't take one look at the dailies and say it was rubbish, I spent a while in a $1400/hour spirit suite tweaking, then tweaked some more in Photoshop, and concluded that it didn't offer enough over video to be worth costing hundreds of times more.

You know, any number of tweaking can't really change what's on the negative ;)

I'm just saying don't judge the format if you're just trying it out. I don't suppose the first time you shot video it looked fantastic?

[TJ Williams]

Going back to LeMaisels original question, how to get the look of film as best he can on his video camera.

 

he said:

 

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?

 

Maybe this will be of some help:

 

This camera you have may have the ability to use a film style softer shoulder gamma curve look for it in the setup menus. I know this is available in the Z model camera. this will help you. probably setting the detail way low and the color a little saturated will also make the look better. Tend to slightly underexose and video underexposes better than overexposes, more like reversal film than negative. use soft lights in front and be sure the key exposures are near the limit of exposure ie just before clipping or color degradation. use matte makeup on those appearing on camera, get costumes in middle tones, do some serious set decoration. A lot of the look of film is actually careful lighting shot planning and sets carefully prepared.

 

All this should make your work look better maybe even more like film. Ultimately film at this point is still superior. Especially outdoors where the environment will run beyond the lattitude of your camera and the overexposed skys and or too deep shadows will give away the electronic nature of your shots. For these conditions use careful selection of sun angles and times of day combined with neutral density and colored grads and polorizers.

 

The biggest thing is an attitude of craftsmanship. get books on film lighting and study films you like. try to duplicate the lighting setups in some of the scenes you like.

Edited April 28, 2005 by tjwilliams

[Guest Dan Diaconu]

Gents,

I read all post from the beginning, I laughed, cried and all that.

 

I could not agree more with everyone and all said (except the length of the debate in the beginning). Sadly, everyone is right in every respect. We are all mourning film and are desperately trying to preserve the "flavor" as good as we can remember it. I am no different in any way. I love film (just like anyone else who got the chance to grow up and chew tones of it) and I do my sad part to preserve the "look" as good as I can remember it. A fake after all, but the better the fake, the better for all.

The only comment on the matter I could add is this: there is no ?magic tool/camera/settings? that will do the job for us. (Idioten aparat in original) There are only inexperienced people faced with lots of settings and with a superficial understanding of film?s log response to light vs CCD/CMOS linear and the narrower contrast ratio that comes with it.

I would be honored to have you as guests on my site and living a comment or two on the subject "film-look" on video (SD and HDV soon) for my nine months of committed work on this subject.

Cheers,

Dan

www.dandiaconu.com

 

PS. And since I do not have anything for sale, please do not take my post as shameless self promotion. I only need some real feedback from eyes that know film, (to evaluate the fake that is)