There is no "film look" anymore ;-)

[Michael Morlan]

I thought I'd reply, in a new thread, to a comment in the thread titled "Xmen & Resident Evil Style of Lighting."

 

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...?showtopic=5442

 

look at what these butts do

 

http://www.efilm.com/home.php

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd love to work with EFilm and, as a cinematographer, have the freedom to make adjustments in post. While the "fix it in post" mentality has somewhat eroded the authority of the cinematographer on the set, we also have an opportunity to evoke our craft and art after the film is in the can.

 

I'm going to make a bold pronouncement. Let the debate begin:

 

There is no "film look" anymore.

 

Inspired by inroads in commericals, feature filmmakers are creatively experimenting with the image. Aside from having a sufficient contrast ratio and rich colorimetry in the recording medium (and other creative issues) the use of digital or film for acquisition has become a moot point -- especially with the ever increasing use of digital intermediates.

 

Soon, every feature will go through a digital process on its way to the screen. "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?" was the first film-aquired feature to go entirely through a DI. Roger Deakins, ASC took full advantage of the abilities of digital tools to create the final look of the film, with brilliant results.

 

The cinematographer's job is changing, expanding to include a rich set of tools in the post-production environment. I, for one, am looking forward to the opportunity to use them.

Edited April 4, 2005 by mmorlan62

[Rik Andino]

I think before you start this debate

I feel it imperative to define what the "Film Look" is?

Without folks might just start arguing semantics.

[Michael Morlan]

Exactly my point Rick. There has been much debate in amateur DV circles about achieving a "film look" when what I believe is really desired is "production value."

 

Debates over frame rate, progressive frames, characteristic curves, etc. are irrelevant. All that is important is the artistry - the composition - of the final moving image. Production value is achieved by effective set/costume/property/lighting design. The whole debate over "Film Look" is merely an attempt to achieve these things.

 

Perhaps I'm rambling and my opening salvo is without merit.

 

A director of photography has so many wonderful choices these days. Aspect ratio, acquisition medium, photochemical and digital manipulation, advances in materials and lighting instruments... It's a great time to be a visual creative contributor!

 

M

Edited April 4, 2005 by mmorlan62

[drew_town]

Exactly my point Rick. There has been much debate in amateur DV circles about achieving a "film look" when what I believe is really desired is "production value."

 

Debates over frame rate, progressive frames, characteristic curves, etc. are irrelevant. All that is important is the artistry - the composition - of the final moving image. Production value is achieved by effective set/costume/property/lighting design. The whole debate over "Film Look" is merely an attempt to achieve these things.

Agreed. One thing that doesn't help is schools reinforce the "film look" philosophy. Students and recent graduates are brainwashed. Instead of concentrating on how to make what they have look the best that it can, they concentrate on making it look theatrical. Downhill from there as set design, structure, directing, vision, acting, style, and most other things deteriorate. It's becoming a bad techy soup when specs get thrown around instead of good ideas. People have to know the techy stuff to shoot good and consistent footage (whether it looks anything like film or not) but this knowledge should be used as a reference. Debate over content not "what's the best way to utilize my new XL2 out of the box."

[Dan Salzmann]

I think artistry and creativity come first from the "why" and secondly from the "how".

Guess the digital age and all the gadgetry and increased consumerism seems to push most people more into the "how" of things.

It's weird when I hear assistants get all excited about the size and number of lights on a previous job and say nothing about what it looked like.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

You will find that most assistants are very cautious about rendering an opinion on what a project looked like, in case they're interpreting it differently to the intention. There might be nothing wrong with what they're saying, but most people I know are very reticent to offer anything that might be taken as opinion.

 

Phil

[Guest Jeff DiMambro]

The only time I hear the term "film look" is when a low budget production shooting on digital wants what it can't or doesn't bother to properly get.

 

The only two choices you have to make in order to get that "film look" is Kodak or Fuji. Film is film, digital is digital, and both can be manipulated and look good if the proper direction, art design, lighting, capture medium, and post processes complimentarily suit each other but most importantly the film as a whole.

[Greg Gross]

Maybe we just should refer to two terms:

 

1. Film

 

2. Digital Cinema

 

This is not meant to be critical of the videographer or video formats.

Focal Press has a new book- "Understanding Digital Cinema",A professional

Handbook. I am opposed to the term, "film look" as there is no such thing.

 

 

Greg Gross

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I agree, and I couldn't agree more with this:

 

> There has been much debate in amateur DV circles about achieving a "film look"

> when what I believe is really desired is "production value."

 

The term is often thrown around by people who turn out to have no idea what film or video looks like and actually just want it to look expensive, which is achievable on either format... with money.

 

Phil

[J. Anthony Gonzales]

Instead of "film look", it should be "to look like film". Film and digital are two different mediums. It's kind of like doing a water color painting and saying, How do I give it that "oils look". Easy, use oils.

 

Whether or not one is better than the other really depends on the project. If I am shooting a run and gun documentary, I'd probably shoot digital. If I am shooting a scope costume drama, then I'm going do it on film.

 

Just my two cents.

 

John

[Guest fstop]

I absolutely LOVE the look of deinterlaced DigiBeta. I LOVE it!

[Filip Plesha]

there seem to be 3 "film looks", one of them is the style of work which resambles hollywood film, the second one is image dynamics (latitude, quality of tones etc.),

and the third one, which Is the authentic "film look" is simply the look

of light captured on emulsion.

The third one is always there in film images no matter how much you crew up the image.

[Paul Bruening]

Hello,

 

As much as I hate to say it, it won't be long before 4K, 24FPS, color seperated, digital cams will kick film out. Dalsa already has a close contender. Currently, I am obliged to say, film is the far superior asthetic. If you can't tell the difference then you should become a keygrip or something.

Edited April 6, 2005 by Paul Bruening

[Rik Andino]

Hello,

 

As much as I hate to say it, it won't be long before 4K, 24FPS, color seperated, digital  cams will kick film out. Dalsa already has a close contender. Currently, I am obliged to say, film is the far superior asthetic. If you can't tell the difference then you should become a keygrip or something.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Great you started the BIG DEBATE again...

When will HD overtake film...

It's sorta like (esoteric analogy)

A bunch of Trojans wondering when (if ever) will the Greeks invade.

 

Someone always brings this topic up and all of a sudden it's

Cowboy's and Indians--Iwo Jima--the West Side Story--or whatever up in here...

 

Finally I take some offense to that keygrip quote :angry:!

I used to be one and still do when I can grip from time to time...

And you're right grips don't care whether it's film or video

We just want lots of clamps and c-stands! :)

 

But I don't appreciate making grips the butt-end of jokes...blah, blah, blah...

 

 

 

Well anyways you started the big fight...

All that's left now is to see who gives the next blow. :unsure:

[Dan Salzmann]

I'll second Rik on the grip remark.

This "film look" thing is like trying to get Tang to taste more like orange juice-Silly!

I think it's more important to get into a mind set of making video look as good as possible for the project at hand with the available resources.

As to the Film vs HD debate I believe that trying to figure out WHEN is a waste of time.

A DP really has to master both mediums these days and it's no picnic when one considers the availability and logistics of HD.

That being said "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!"

[Matt Pacini]

The only people I hear use the term "film look", are people who don't shoot film.

I've known countless people who were saying "digital is going to kill film, man", until they actually shot some film and saw the difference for themselves.

 

Just the fact there's now DI, and terrific CG capabilities that can alter either film or video originated footage, doesn't magically make it as if there is no difference.

You can use all these tools on footage from a 20 year old VHS camcorder too.

It's still gonna look like crap.

 

Matt Pacini

[Mark Allen]

I'll add as a general observation.

 

Movies are beginning to have "looks." Something that is starting to mark this current generation of filmmaking is that they are becoming increasingly unique unto themselves. Some random examples: The Matrix I, Three Kings, Brother Where Art Thou, Star Wars II, Sin City, Thirteen, Pi, Sky Captain, The Ring, Aviator, Napoleon Dynamite, Waking Life, Pieces of April - Think of how different all of these movies are. Prior to this generation of filmmaking, most films (there were always exceptions) had a similar look and it was mostly determined by the stock. There are always changes in aesthetic. When cameras became lighter, the entire handheld inclination made it's way into the regular vernacular of filmmaking - that was a major change, the change of a different generation. Blade Runner, Flash Dance, and a few other post-modern movies of the 80s seemed to be the beginning of a desire for a personal stamp. (I'm using movies that were appealing to a mass audience here, I know lesser known films have had stamps for years.)

 

The current change in cinema to me seems to be the idea that you can own your own look and the audience not only seem to accept it - they seem to crave it more and more - and more and more regard it as perceived production value.

 

The "film look" was a term popularized by a company of the same name due to their Patent on a process that was the first holy grail of using video instead of film (U.S. Patents 5,335,013, 5,475,425, 5,831,673) which would appeal to the lower budget filmmakers wanting to add production value. Then the obsession began about how to make video look like film.

 

Perhaps the original poster was noticing that this filmlook era may be wayning in recognition that productions can look a variety of ways and the true desire is, in fact, production value.

 

just my 3 cents.

Edited April 9, 2005 by Mark Douglas

[Paul Bruening]

Hey good folks,

 

Has anyone checked Dalsa? Their Origin cam is not shabby. I can't get a price out of them. They only want to talk to big-timers. I'm not crazy about the cost of storage, yet, film scans take up whopping space as well. Just wondering if anyone here has heard any buz on the cam.