How do I get the film/cinematic look with a digital camera?

[David Mullen ASC]

I did a drawing to illustrate the principle:

 

The Colorflex invented for "Young Winston" was basically like a 3D rig, a piece of glass at a 45 degree angle to the lens to reflect a large flat diffused lightbox, so that you saw the subject through this even controlled veil of light, which could be colored.

 

The problem was that the unit had to be quite large if you used a wide-angle lens (and "Young Winston" was shot in anamorphic as well.)

 

The solution was to replace the piece of glass with a smaller piece of curved plastic, with a smaller lighbox above that. The curved plastic acted like an anamorphic lens -- it stretched the reflection of the lightbox, elongating it so that it filled the frame.

 

"The Wiz", shot by Ozzie Morris, used this extensively, as did "Dune" and other movies shot by Freddie Francis.

 

The patent was bought by ARRI, I think in the late 1980's, who replaced the idea of reflecting a light source to making the glass itself glow evenly, so the unit was not much larger than a 6x6 filter with a light bar along one edge. They called this the Varicon.

[David Mullen ASC]

"Dune" is one of the nicest examples of what the Lightflex could do. Freddie Francis used it very lightly to lift details in dark wood and stone set designs. This shot is a bit more lifted than the rest of the movie, but it's also because some light smoke was used on the set:

 

The curved plastic face of the Lightflex caused a flare line to form around a bright light just as with anamorphic lenses, but since the curvature is 90 degrees rotated compared to the cylindrical element of an anamorphic lens, the flare is vertical rather than horizontal. You see it in a few shots:

 

The heaviest flashing with the Lightflex was for the day exterior desert work. Francis wanted to remove any blue cast in the shadows from the desert sky because in post the blue skies were going to be replaced by brown. So he flashed the day scenes with brown light, which you can see in the black outfits and the shadows:

[Tyler Purcell]

Ahh yes! That thing! Very cool device, I always wondered how much it was used. Thanks for the wonderful post about it, good to know! :)

[joshua gallegos]

I couldn't disagree more. I think it's perfect. The show is about a guy who is so totally detached from reality and the people around him, that he's completely incapable of relating to the world in any conventional way.

 

Personally I think the visual construction of the show absolutely nails the presentation of that. It puts you right there in this world you can't quite relate to, where everyone's looking out the short side of the frame, and seems a little off.

 

I think the show's a masterpiece for that (in combination with the sublime writing and acting).

Every Tv show appears as a masterpiece the first two to three seasons, there will come a time when it will become formulaic and completely redundant. Have you seen 'The Interrogation' by Francis Coppola? The way he achieves the character's alienation from reality doesn't have any gimmicks like most TV shows, it's masterfully crafted.

[joshua gallegos]

But come on, if shooting in a different color temperature other than for a neutral balance is to be avoided, it doesn't leave a lot of creative tools at the cinematographer's disposal! We'd be back to the 1940's and 50's color movies where skin tones had to be neutral no matter if an actor was standing next to a fire or under the moon or watching the sun set.

 

My point was that approach is often misused, especially in TV. One of the most perfect films ever shot in recent years is 'True Grit' by Roger Deakins, and that is because every image tells the story- the way it's composed and lighting, and even his perfect use of image color balancing! And you can see an enormous amount of discipline on Roger's part, something that is lacking in most films these days. Of course, this is just my personal opinion. Most commercial films I've noticed tend to look the same, they're hardly indistinguishable from one another, especially horror movies. And I didn't think East of Eden was all that bad, it was made in the 1950s, I think color balancing differently may look impressive at times, but it may detract from the story or give a scene a level of 'importance' that it didn't need. It just has to be used more sparingly as opposed to just be there for the sake of art.

[joshua gallegos]

Every Tv show appears as a masterpiece the first two to three seasons, there will come a time when it will become formulaic and completely redundant. Have you seen 'The Interrogation' by Francis Coppola? The way he achieves the character's alienation from reality doesn't have any gimmicks like most TV shows, it's masterfully crafted.

Mean to say 'The Conversation'.

[David Mullen ASC]

There is plenty of playing with color temperature in "True Grit", warm scenes, cold scenes, etc.

[David Mullen ASC]

 

[David Mullen ASC]

It's a bit unfair to complain that some TV show is not as well-photographed as one of the best-looking movies of the past several years shot by one of the greatest cinematographers of all time. So if we're not Roger Dakins, we aren't allowed to experiment with color?

[David Mullen ASC]

If every movie employed Roger Deakin's fantastic aesthetics, it would be like eating at a 3 Michelin-Star restaurant every night, when some nights you'd rather go out for tacos or a cheeseburger. It would be like a world with only classical music and no jazz, hip-hop, nor punk rock. It would be like seeing the Dutch masters in the National Gallery and skipping the Post-Impressionists. If movies are to stick around and the grow artistically, we have to allow for experimentation, we have to allow for things that rub us the wrong way, challenge our systems of valuation, cause us to question how things are done, even offend us. The over-emphasis on good taste can be the death of art. I don't think Roger Deakins would want a world of Roger Deakins copiers with no Chris Doyles, no Janusz Kaminski's.

[joshua gallegos]

There is plenty of playing with color temperature in "True Grit", warm scenes, cold scenes, etc.

There is, but it's used appropriately and it doesn't look as messy as the scene from Mr. Robot that I posted. I think the basis of this entire discussion is differentiating the differences between film and digital, and my point is that there is no difference, it comes from the cinematographer's eye. For instance Roger's work in the digital and film format have no discrepancy, because he acquired such discipline from shooting film. Nowadays, the lower tier cinematographers/ students, do not have such a discipline and rely heavily on color correction as opposed to trusting or having that eye. I remember Roger posted a story where the monitor for Skyfall wasn't properly calibrated, and he was still able to tell it was off, even though they were telling him it wasn't off. I think every cinematographer should at the very least aspire to be as great as Roger Deakins, some will never reach that prowess, but they can surely try. It's just things I've noticed, how image making has in a way, overshadowed the film performances. A great example is Chivo's work in 'The Revenant' or any other film he's shot, it's all about "wow, look how pretty that looks", and it wasn't like that before, just like in Ford's 'The Searchers', the cinematography doesn't overpower the performances, it's there to help the story.

[Satsuki Murashige]

Who decides what is 'appropriate' photography though? What if I want to risk trying something 'inappropriate'? Cinema won't advance or continue to engage new audiences without taking some risks.

[joshua gallegos]

I don't mean to disrespect any cinematographers working in TV, a lot of them do amazing work in shows like Game of Thrones, or Reed Morano's work in Vinyl, and David's work as well. But I've browsed through enough network shows and seen plenty of trailers like Purge, to know that not every up and coming cinematographer has cared to look at past films. I don't understand why Mr. Robot feels the need to create such disjointed composition in every frame! The fact that it's a popular show, just comes to show you that very few people care about past films.

[joshua gallegos]

Who decides what is 'appropriate' photography though? What if I want to risk trying something 'inappropriate'? Cinema won't advance or continue to engage new audiences without taking some risks.

Because there is such a thing as proper technique, you can only browse through several decades of powerful filmmaking to know what works and what doesn't. There are just some things you can't change about moviemaking. Strangely, the biggest cinematographic breakthroughs are actually taking place in videogames, because they are made for the sole purpose of IMMERSING the gamer, to experience things as if you were experiencing them in real life. And what you see, you see how you would normally see it. There aren't any aberrations as in film, where the color temperature is not what your eyes would normally see.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

because they are made for the sole purpose of IMMERSING the gamer, to experience things as if you were experiencing them in real life. And what you see, you see how you would normally see it. There aren't any aberrations as in film, where the color temperature is not what your eyes would normally see.

I am not a DP by any means but do come from years of experience in the video game industry. The "immersion" of video games has nothing to do with the color temperature of the image. I recall meetings where the sole purpose was to discuss techniques for immersing players into the game. Not once did I hear anyone mention about color temperature. Gaming companies have even funded psychological studies to determine this phenomenon. The most basic implementation is, believe it or not, intuitive controls (making the player feel in control of his/her environment) and the sound (fx, music were appropriate.) Graphics, for all of their beauty and fun, do not significantly contribute to immersion in a vacuum. Only once you have the other two things down will everything else matter.

[Satsuki Murashige]

If your judging criteria is based purely on technical best practices, then how would you rate Raul Coutard's use of bounced lighting and rough handheld camera on 'Breathless'; Conrad Hall's use of lens flare on 'Cool Hand Luke'; Owen Roizman's use of pushed film stock on 'The French Connection'; Gordon Willis's use of underexposure on 'The Godfather'; Chris Doyle's use of undercranking on 'Chungking Express', etc.?

 

All of those examples were radical departures from the accepted norm in their time. I'm sure there were many filmgoers who hated them and saw them as gimmicky or technically inferior.

 

So your criteria for what is 'appropriate' or 'tasteful' photography should be broader than just technical excellence, unless you're telling me that you don't find any of the above examples to be great.

[joshua gallegos]

I am not a DP by any means but do come from years of experience in the video game industry. The "immersion" of video games has nothing to do with the color temperature of the image. I recall meetings where the sole purpose was to discuss techniques for immersing players into the game. Not once did I hear anyone mention about color temperature. Gaming companies have even funded psychological studies to determine this phenomenon. The most basic implementation is, believe it or not, intuitive controls (making the player feel in control of his/her environment) and the sound (fx, music were appropriate.) Graphics, for all of their beauty and fun, do not significantly contribute to immersion in a vacuum. Only once you have the other two things down will everything else matter.

I disagree, I don't know how long ago you worked in the gaming industry, but things have changed so fast, especially in role playing games such as Fallout 4. A new virtual reality technology is now available, and the future of the gaming industry will slowly creep into mainstream cinema. Younger audiences will no longer be interested in watching cinema in two dimensions once they get a taste of virtual reality technology. Just look at this small clip and look how the environment actually changes, the game has a built in clock, so there's actual day and night. With the addition of virtual reality, the lighting will become a crucial aspect of the immersion.

 

 

 

This is going to change everything.

[David Mullen ASC]

I hardly think that "Mr. Robot" uses such strikingly unbalanced compositions because "they don't care about past films." They are attempting to create a visual language to support their narrative. Now you are entitled to feel that it doesn't work or that it is heavy-handed, but at least they are trying to think in visual terms rather than playing it safe and conventional with standard TV coverage.

 

Also, people do odd, experimental things either out of ignorance or out of a reaction to some existing norm, and it seems unlikely that the people making "Mr. Robot" aren't aware that they are breaking convention. And just because you pick one style doesn't mean you don't care about other styles --- if I shoot a modern soft-lit naturalistic movie, it doesn't mean I stopped "caring" about old hard-lit theatrical movies.

 

 

 

Because there is such a thing as proper technique, you can only browse through several decades of powerful filmmaking to know what works and what doesn't.

 

That implies a stronger belief in objectivity about art (in a sort of Ayn Rand sort of way) that I can subscribe to -- if you study the history of art or cinema, you find that notions of "proper technique" change with generations. In fact, almost every new form of painting was considered to be "improper" technique by the practitioners of the old forms. The only proper technique is the one that works. Now you may feel that in the case of "Mr. Robot" it doesn't work, which is fine, that's just your opinion.

 

And as someone who watches decades of filmmaking regularly (this weekend I went to a theater to see "So This is Paris" (1926) by Ernst Lubitsch -- enjoyed myself more than I have recently at some new releases...) I don't feel that you "only" have to browse through several decades to know what works and doesn't work. I wish it were that easy! When both Akira Kurosawa and David Lean were in their 70's, they both said that they were just getting a handle on making movies after a lifetime of doing it. I certainly am still learning what works and doesn't work, and part of the challenge is that what works and doesn't work has a lot to do with the particular material the technique is being applied to.

 

You object to the soft, pastel, warmed-up image from "Mr. Robot" and yet that same technique is fine when Roger Deakins does it, so clearly the problem you are finding isn't due to the technique, it's the application of it.

 

And as far arch unsettling, unbalanced compositions, it worked when Orson Welles did it in "The Trial" so there is nothing wrong with that technique either.

 

The same compositions in "Mr. Robot" have been done in older movies, it's just that you haven't seen it applied so heavily to a TV series.

[joshua gallegos]

That's great, I completely agree. But I just can't enjoy new films, I don't think they'll ever be as great as they used to be, it kind of seems like theatrical films are trying to find a way to become relevant again, but I could care less about them now. I mean I can't see a difference from a Coca-Cola commercial to the look of a theatrical film, there's just nothing special about movies anymore.

[John E Clark]

I don't think they'll ever be as great as they used to be, it kind of seems like theatrical films are trying to find a way to become relevant again, but I could care less about them now. I mean I can't see a difference from a Coca-Cola commercial to the look of a theatrical film, there's just nothing special about movies anymore.

 

Well... sure... I don't think you will see many 'cast of thousands' and a 'battle scene in wide screen 'vista/toddao/whatever'(*) such as one finds say "Spartacus"(1960) or the desert vistas of "Lawrence of Arabia"(1962)...

 

But you know what... you typically won't see shots which are supposed to be 'somewhere' which are clearly done in a studio, or 'outdoors' with a obvious back/front projection screen... or car shots where it is clear the rear window is being projected... while the people is in a studio.

 

The reason perhaps one doesn't see a difference between a Coke ad and a film... is because the advertising business has significantly upgraded their production values. Perhaps because of the use of digital processing rather than using expensive optical or other types of effects.

 

*The most recent battle scene in Game of Thrones, I think is the 'best' relative to the idea of making cinematic a 'medieval' battle... if one reads what those battles were 'really' like, rather than nice clean sanitized versions which were the Hollywood Standard during the Golden Age of the Studio System.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I disagree, I don't know how long ago you worked in the gaming industry, but things have changed so fast, especially in role playing games such as Fallout 4. A new virtual reality technology is now available, and the future of the gaming industry will slowly creep into mainstream cinema. Younger audiences will no longer be interested in watching cinema in two dimensions once they get a taste of virtual reality technology. Just look at this small clip and look how the environment actually changes, the game has a built in clock, so there's actual day and night. With the addition of virtual reality, the lighting will become a crucial aspect of the immersion.

 

 

 

This is going to change everything.

I see you have it all figured out and all of us are just "old guys" who have outdated viewpoints about everything, am I correct?

 

Try this...make a video game and give it dreadful input like Castlevania:Rondo of Blood and bad sound effects and tell me how much VR saves the day as players are tearing their hair out trying to feel some semblance of control in their virtual world.

[Carl Looper]

I think the basis of this entire discussion is differentiating the differences between film and digital, and my point is that there is no difference, it comes from the cinematographer's eye. For instance Roger's work in the digital and film format have no discrepancy, because he acquired such discipline from shooting film.

 

There is a huge difference between film and digital, but some of those differences can be minimised, and some will argue it can also be elliminated. But it's purely a choice. Using film one might want to exploit what is different in film from video, ie. not just what is in common. Or vice versa. But either way one can't really ignore the difference. Not on a technical level. Well, one can, but it would limit what one might be otherwise able to do.

 

It certainly involves the cinematographer's eyes but it's not just one's eyes. On a technical level one is working with materials that have their own kind of idea of how things work (physical forces) that need respecting. One might like to have a camera glide through a window, but the glass in the window will have it's own ideas on that. So one would be advised to take that into account.

 

It's not all about a subjective point of view. It's not all about taste. It's also about how the world behaves. Or how it can be made to behave. It's not just the eye of the beholder. The beholden plays an equally important role - as obstacle and/or inspiration.

 

C

Edited July 16, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Carl Looper]

That's great, I completely agree. But I just can't enjoy new films, I don't think they'll ever be as great as they used to be, it kind of seems like theatrical films are trying to find a way to become relevant again, but I could care less about them now. I mean I can't see a difference from a Coca-Cola commercial to the look of a theatrical film, there's just nothing special about movies anymore.

 

When I go ten pin bowling I can see the difference between that and playing the latest computer game, but I've never felt that such a difference would mean there was no longer "anything special" about ten pin bowling. It's not an either/or decision here. One can enjoy both. There's way too much of a "you're either with us or against us" logic that infiltratres consideration of these sorts of things.

 

I've mentioned this many times before but it's worth repeating. When photography was first invented many thought it spelt the end of painting. Literally. Not just metaphorically. There was a huge consternation about it. It seems laughable today - and it is - but that's how photography was first received. As a substitute for painting. It was as if there was a choice to be made: between photography and painting. Some argued that painting was better because you could do paintings in colour. Ha ha. Photography would eventually resolve colour - because colour is interesting in it's own right - not because painting had that competitive edge over photography. The either/or logic that took hold of thought at that time was purely a false logic. Photography was a new art - not a replacement. Painting continues to this day and will no doubt continue for a long time to come. What was interesting at the time is that painters began to explore new ways of painting. Photography, in a sense, had initiated a liberation of painting. And photography, for it's part, found it's feet - not as some sort of automatic painting machine, but as making visible alternative conceptions of the world from that which painting made visible.

 

C

Edited July 16, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Reece Matheson]

If you want to get a filmic/cinematic look with a digital camera you need to buy a good camera. I think it's as simple as that (sadly). This means buying a 25,000$+ camera. A Red Epic, Arri Alexa, or a Sony F-65 or F-55 (the latter being the least filmic/cinematic of the four but also the cheapest), etc... The reason for this is because they have either a Mechanical Shutter or a Global Shutter, which creates a filmic motion cadence/capture as it captures the image in a way similar to film cameras. While having a Mechanical Shutter like the F-65 or a Global Shutter creates a filmic/cinematic look, you can also get this with a Rolling Shutter if, and only if it happens to have an incredibly fast readout speed such as with the Alexa. From what I remember it has a readout speed of 6ms versus other CMOS rolling shutter cameras which have double or even triple the readout speeds. Older digital cameras usually had CCD sensors and global shutters which is why those pioneering digital film cameras looked cinematic/filmic. Cameras with CCD sensors tended to have global shutters but CCDs are virtually extinct now, as CMOS have taken over due to their cheapness and light sensitivity. CMOS sensors are superior in virtually every aspect, but because they read out the image line by line and tend to have slow readout speeds, they usually produce a less filmic look, where as a CCD sensor which captures the image all at once (like a picture) creates that filmic look. The next greatest factor in my opinion is the Dynamic Range of the camera. DSLRs and lower end cameras tend to have considerably less dynamic range than film (14 stops), which essentially means they can't see into shadows well and the highlights can easily clip and get blown out. After that, you want to shoot at 24 frames per second or 24p for a filmic look (the film standard). The next factor is to have a 180 degree shutter angle or 1/48 shutter speed (its not necessary but most films shoot at this SA). Another factor which contributes to creating a filmic/cinematic look is the lens. Lenses play a huge role in creating a cinematic look (bokeh, depth of field, sharpness). Zeiss lenses are known for being very sharp where as Cooke lenses have a distinct look, tend to be less sharp with a warmer feel and unique bokeh). I think one of the most overlooked factors for creating a filmic/cinematic look with a digital camera is what type of file you are recording it in. Use intra-frame codecs. Use Raw or LOG, Prores 444 or 4444HQ at 10bit, 12 bit or higher. It is so important that you use these codecs to get a cinematic image. This is also important for CGI as the reason why CGI looks so bad on lower budget films is usually because they recorded the image at 4:2:0 which doesn't give the effects guys much to work with. Other factors include the color science, grading, lighting, props, acting, etc... If you can't afford a high end camera, I'd recommend saving up. Kubrick was a master filmmaker for many reasons, one of them being he made sure he had the best technology available. If you don't want to save for an expensive camera, I'd recommend the Canon C-300 or C-100s as they are great cameras their price. Hope this post has been helpful.

[Phil Rhodes]

Couldn't disagree more. Rolling shutter is a negative, but generally speaking the things that people talk about when they use the term "cinematic" are a lot to do with production design and lighting: locations, costumes, actors, props, set dressing, and so on. If you shot Transformers on a cellphone it would, within limits, still look like a big, spendy Hollywood movie.

 

Cameras help, but nothing more.

 

P