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

[David Mullen ASC]

The Red Epic and almost all of the Arri Alexas use rolling shutters -- only the Alexa Studio, the one with the optical viewfinder, has a mechanical shutter.

 

And technically, a rotating mechanical shutter is a form of rolling shutter...

[Stuart Brereton]

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.

I don't know where you get the idea that older CCD cameras were more cinematic. The most widely used CCD camera in narrative work was the Sony F900, and by today's standards it was severely lacking in dynamic range, resolution and recording medium. It wasn't RAW or Log capable, and the in-camera recorder was 8 bit 3:1:1. When used in progressive scan, you also had to add in 1/48 sec electronic shutter to get rid of the global shutter, which far from giving it a 'cinematic' feel, would cause motion smearing.

[Tyler Purcell]

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.

What? What? What? Umm, bad effects work generally comes from time/money constraints in post production and/or the effects people not know how to achieve what the director wants. It's true when you try to pull a key, higher bit depth and color space files are very important. However, if you can't pull a key, good artists can work around the problems. There are dozens of high-budget movies which use Go Pro's or similar 8 bit 4:2:0 cameras and pull keys from them. You don't even know they were used it's so seamless.

 

Kubrick was a master filmmaker for many reasons, one of them being he made sure he had the best technology available.

Did he? I would beg to differ. Yes, his dreamed pushed production to a level, most filmmakers wouldn't go to. Yet, the end result was very much "un" technical. Due to Kubrick's concern about quality of theaters, ALL of his 35mm distributed movies outside of 'Eyes Wide Shut' were shot full frame and had mono audio tracks. In fact, his 35mm distributed movies were not available in "stereo" until the remastered 1999 DVD set. Kubrick also used standard run if the mill cameras; Mitchell's of various types and , Arri II, Arri BL and eventually the 535. Had Kubrick really been that technically savvy, he would have shot everything in 70mm to insure picture and audio were up to the best standards. He did so in 2001 and probably could have convinced Warner to do the same on his other movies. The problem is, Kubrick liked small hand held cameras and his experience working with the huge Panavision 70mm cameras, I believe turned him off. He did it once, but never used large format again, which is a real shame.

 

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.

So wait a second, you complained above about an 8 bit 4:2:0 image, yet you recommend cameras that shoot 8 bit 4:2:0? EEK!

[Giray Izcan]

Oh no! The master Tyler is at it again!!! Watch out people!!

[David Mullen ASC]

The Panavision Genesis and Sony F35 also had CCD's, though I don't think that's what contributed to their "cinematic" look as much as the fact that they were early 35mm single-sensor cameras that could take 35mm cinema lenses.

 

I agree with Tyler that Kubrick was obsessed over his tools and technology, but the end goal wasn't to create the highest technical quality possible -- he was an artist and a storyteller, not an engineer. He actually considered shooting "2001" in standard 35mm at one point (with the caveat that Kubrick always questioned and considered EVERYTHING during the course of pre-production through release). And he shot one week of "Full Metal Jacket" in 65mm b&w before switching to push-processed 35mm color. Kubrick was a control freak, but that control was in order to make sure things were shown to the public exactly how he wanted them to be shown, not that he wanted the most technically impressive presentation possible for every movie.

[Reece Matheson]

The Red Epic and almost all of the Arri Alexas use rolling shutters -- only the Alexa Studio, the one with the optical viewfinder, has a mechanical shutter.

 

And technically, a rotating mechanical shutter is a form of rolling shutter...

You're right. I'm sorry, I should have elaborated a bit more. I believe Red Epics used on feature films would make use of the Red Motion Mount which gives the camera a global shutter, giving it that look. In regards to the Alexa, the studio is by far the most used Alexa on feature films, explaining why it looks so filmic. IMO. I could be wrong but from what I've seen it makes sense to me.

 

The F900, Thompson Viper Filmstream, Panavision Genesis, etc.. were very cinematic. I think the only times they didnt look cinematic were when Michael Mann purposely wanted a digital look like in Collateral and Miami Vice or when Gibson shot Apocalypto and needed an extra stop or two shooting in the jungle by using a 270 shutter. Other than that I think they were great filmic cameras.

[Reece Matheson]

I recommended the Canon cameras as a suggestion if one didn't want to spend thousands and thousands of dollars on a camera and also because they have been used to shoot feature films such as Blue Ruin, Blue is the Warmest Color, and Eli Roth's The Green Inferno. The fact they have been used on feature films is a huge plus.

[Stuart Brereton]

You're right. I'm sorry, I should have elaborated a bit more. I believe Red Epics used on feature films would make use of the Red Motion Mount which gives the camera a global shutter, giving it that look. In regards to the Alexa, the studio is by far the most used Alexa on feature films, explaining why it looks so filmic. IMO. I could be wrong but from what I've seen it makes sense to me.

 

The RED motion mount is a fairly recent product. The vast majority of RED productions were made without it. The Alexa Studio, while it is the flagship model of the range, is apparently somewhat rarely rented. Although many DPs requested the optical finder system, the electronic VF of the other models are far more popular.

[Reece Matheson]

Thanks. I don't know then. Maybe its because of a fast read out speed and maybe its because the image is captured in raw that explains why it has that cinematic look. Those were the only logical things that came to mind.

[Tyler Purcell]

Thanks. I don't know then. Maybe its because of a fast read out speed and maybe its because the image is captured in raw that explains why it has that cinematic look. Those were the only logical things that came to mind.

Or maybe it's just the filmmakers using the old school cinematic method of making movies. Most digital cameras look ok under controlled lighting conditions. It's when you break away from those situations where different cameras start to feel more or less filmic. Put a 35mm camera on your shoulder and go out and shoot anything, it will look "filmic" no matter what. Do the same thing with a digital camera, things like motion blur and highlight clipping, really start to define digital cameras, especially at night. There have been a multitude of tests done with the Alexa directly against Super 35mm and the only time you can tell the difference between the two is with uncontrolled lighting, especially in dark situations. Film always holds up, where even the mighty Alexa has a very digital looking motion blur and the way it reacts to highlights is totally different.

 

I'm rarely stumped when watching something, even at home on my 1080p DLP cinema projector. I can usually tell what digital camera it was shot with. I enjoy verifying my opinion on IMDB and it's rare that I'm off. Discerning film v digital isn't even in the cards, the difference is noticeable right away, then it's down to what stock and lenses they used. To me, that means even the best, most talent artists, still haven't been able to achieve the perfect, most "filmic" look with digital cameras. The argument is... why bother? We're in a new age, the age of digital and film is very much still alive. So if you want a filmic look, just shoot film! It's cheaper now then it's been for quite sometime, thanks to so many people shooting and so much re-can stock being available. New labs are popping up all over the place and pricing for lab work is slowly becoming competitive to the level where shooting on film isn't anywhere near as expensive. So when people ask me; "how do I get a filmic look", I point to a picture of a 16mm camera and say; "that's how".

[Carl Looper]

Or maybe it's just the filmmakers using the old school cinematic method of making movies. [...] So when people ask me; "how do I get a filmic look", I point to a picture of a 16mm camera and say; "that's how".

 

I agree.

 

Exploit each for their specific strengths, rather than banging one's head against a brick wall trying to erase any difference. Who buys a water colour painting because it resembles an oil painting, or vice versa? Some might do so but the majority certainly don't. Why bother trying to fool anyone? More often than not you just end up fooling yourself. The greatest illusion in films (acetate, polyestor or digital) is that films are an illusion.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Stuart Brereton]

I can usually tell what digital camera it was shot with. I enjoy verifying my opinion on IMDB and it's rare that I'm off.

I'm curious about this statement, given the large number of different camera systems being used these days, and the wide variety of looks and grading decisions that are utilized. How are you able to accurately judge what camera was used originally? How are you able to differentiate between what maybe a characteristic of the camera, and what is a grading decision? It's certainly something that no-one I know can reliably do.

[Tyler Purcell]

It's certainly something that no-one I know can reliably do.

I've been doing it since I was a kid. I guess it's just having an eye for little nuances that trigger a memory.

[Stuart Brereton]

Having an eye for nuance presupposes that you are familiar with the nuances of all these cameras, which is a feat in itself. I tend only to be familiar with those cameras I am regularly using. Are we really only talking about the most popular camera systems? Say Alexa, RED, Sony? These three would account for the vast majority of narrative work these days. I can see how you might be able to differentiate between ungraded 709 images from these three cameras, but once they have been color-timed and their pictures pulled around in various ways, it's hard to see how any of that 'nuance' is left.

[John E Clark]

For me the telling difference between 'film' and 'digital'... is very obvious from the following sample.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xKiyH6vuEQ

 

Young whipper snappers apparently have never had to wade through such 'intermission' or pre-movie crap... and have the Feature (Double Feature even...) print in about the same condition, depending.

 

On the other hand, probably everyone but me was able to view only Hollywood's finest on pristine prints, in well maintained projection rooms, and further, an audience that actually had an interest in the film, rather than sleeping and snoring, or in the case of drive-ins, with Bobby Jack humping Sally Sue in the backseat while Billy Joe and Emma Jean tried to look interested in the film while fumbling for the popcorn box.

 

As it is for me the 'filmic look' has far more to do with set design, set dressing, color schemes, etc. and... uh... acting... than any difference these days between digital or film capture, or presentation.

Edited August 9, 2016 by John E Clark

[Phil Rhodes]

I don't think what most people call "cinematic" is much to do with the characteristics of the imaging technology, one way or the other. They're talking about stuff that looks like a big movie. What makes a big movie look like a big movie is the production design, the locations, props, costumes, lighting, hair and makeup - even things like music, writing and the performances that don't have anything directly to do with image but which conspire to create an impression of legitimacy.

 

It's that impression of legitimacy that people crave - not another half a stop of dynamic range.

 

P

[Tyler Purcell]

Having an eye for nuance presupposes that you are familiar with the nuances of all these cameras, which is a feat in itself.

I spend most days editing material shot with them and coloring the end result. It's not really a feat at all... most of my friends can tell you what stop they used per shot and some of them, exactly what glass as well. I'm not THAT good. LOL

[Stuart Brereton]

most of my friends can tell you what stop they used per shot and some of them, exactly what glass as well.

Well, that information is generally written on the camera reports, and often on the continuity notes, so perhaps it's not so much a feat of deduction and more simple reading skills.

[Tyler Purcell]

Well, that information is generally written on the camera reports, and often on the continuity notes, so perhaps it's not so much a feat of deduction and more simple reading skills.

huh? These guys knew nothing about the shoot walking into the theater. Even in the world of post production, it's rare for an editor to even request or have access to camera reports and most script notes only give focal length, not f stop and type of lens/filters.

[Stuart Brereton]

It's common practice for a copy of the camera reports to be sent with dailies to the editor. Continuity notes also often include stop, focal length and focus distances.

 

If you friends are able to identify stop and lens manufacturer just from from looking at the screen then they have better eyes than anyone I know, including myself. Granted, there are certain tell-tales that may give away certain lenses, under certain circumstances, but absent these, and I defy anyone to reliably identify lens choices. How exactly are your friends confirming their opinions?

[Tyler Purcell]

I haven't been blessed with the opportunity to be part of a big enough show in the assistant editing room where things are originally compiled. I'm an editor, so I come in after the AE's done their business and I'm rarely handed anything but a copy of the script and the script notes, which I reference if I'm stumped. I watch the cut and determine what needs to be done based on the directors notes and what I see. As a colorist, I've never seen script or camera notes on any show. I'm also rarely involved with the final pass on the bigger shows. With those particular shows, I'm more if the intermediary guy who edits the project and then does an initial color for the top colorist to finish. That's why I had to learn DaVinci, it was a prerequisite for my job/business rather then something I wanted to do. Yes, I do a lot of final color, but those are on smaller shows that wouldn't have any notes, like trailers, commercials, promo's, corporate, shorts and low-budget features. I'm in the middle of cutting two features and neither one had any notes from the camera department.

 

We use to read the AC articles about the movies and compare our notes. It's a great exercise to understand what you think they're doing vs what they ARE doing. Sometimes we'd just watch the BluRay, take notes and compare them to the AC article right then and there. Between all of us, we'd usually be pretty darn close.

[Stuart Brereton]

It just seems that an ability to consistently identify a camera system and lens manufacturer from watching finished footage would be almost impossible, given the number of variables involved in making such a determination. There are many different digital camera manufacturers, and the images from those cameras all have their own characteristics, and to be familiar with them all would be very difficult. Added into that are the lens characteristics, which are also not necessarily obvious. We've all seen the Cooke iris shape in out of focus highlights, for example, which is a giveaway, but under most conditions modern lenses are designed to be invisible. I would be very surprised if there were anything but superficial differences between Master Primes, Ultras, Summilux, or Primos, particularly when shot at f4 or above. Even older lenses, like super-speeds, are difficult to spot once stopped down . I'd say that it would only be possible to identify differences when directly comparing identical material shot with different lenses

 

Once you are viewing graded material, both the characteristics of the camera, and the lens can become obscured by whatever color-timing decisions have been made. By the time lift and gain, gamma and saturation have been adjusted and power windows are applied, who is to say what the original material looked like, and from what camera it originated?

[David Mullen ASC]

I can make an educated guess but have been wrong many times -- things I thought were shot on Alexa were shot on film ("Grand Budapest Hotel" was so clean-looking that I guessed Alexa early on when it turned out to be 200T Kodak), things I thought were shot on a Sony F55 were shot on an Alexa, and don't get me started on lenses... I have been better at guessing on filters used, spotted the Double-Fog used for that one battle scene in "Warhorse" for example. Color-correction can make one thing look like the other; it's particularly easy to make a wide dynamic range camera like the Alexa look more high-contrast or over-saturate the reds, etc.

 

It's not hard to be right more often than wrong if you just play the odds, most Hollywood projects are shot on an Alexa, for example.

[Phil Rhodes]

I have managed to make at least some party conversation out of an ability to date productions by the way they look. This is of course much easier than identifying specific equipment or materials that were used, although if it's clearly the late 1930s and it's in colour that does rather narrow it down.

[Justin Hayward]

I was flipping through channels with my kids yesterday and landed on the Eddie Murphy Disney movie, "The Haunted Mansion". Since it was released in 2003 I knew it was likely shot on film, but if it was released in 2015 I would have guessed the Alexa.