Check this out

[Ckulakov]

Here are two grabs. The first one is straight from my camera with no adjustments. The second one is my aproach to the 'film look' by lighting with more shadows, using 1/2 black promist, and a warming filter, narrowing DOF, and a little bit of color-correction. I also letterboxed it to make it look more cinematic.

 

Tell me what you think and what you would have done.

 

 

[Ckulakov]

The one with the film look has a little noise around the face. But I will get rid of it.

 

PLEASE POST YOUR OPINION ANYTHING WILL HELP

 

Thanks

[Tim Tyler]

what you would have done.

 

I wouldn't have put a white shirt on my subject.

 

I wouldn't have put my subject as close to the background.

 

The filters helps soften the image.

 

Try using some bounce fill on the shadow side of the subject's face.

 

I would have put the lamp in the bg on a dimmer and brought it out away from the wall a little.

[Ckulakov]

Dear Tim,

 

Thanks for your advice

But what do you think about the overall color, contrast, and saturation. and how I acheived the "film look", and not the lighting and set issues.

 

Also you mean you thought softness added to the film look or not?

[Tim Tyler]

I don't necessarily think you've acheived a 'film look' with the 2nd image. It is more stylistic and it's 16:9, but I don't think it looks like it was shot on film.

 

To me, acheiving the film look with SD video means hiding all the tell-tale signs that it was shot on video. The filters you used helped a bit, but lighting, production design and wardrobe can also make a difference.

 

Have you read the dozen or so past threads on 'film look' in this forum?

[Ckulakov]

Tim

Yes, and more than once and also read many other articles too. I know it doesnt look exactly like it was shot on hollywood 35mm film. But compared to the first picture it obviosly looks closer to a real movie. What would you do to make it look closer to film.

 

Thanks

[Tim Tyler]

What would you do to make it look closer to film.

I wouldn't have put a white shirt on my subject.

 

I wouldn't have put my subject as close to the background.

 

I would have used some bounce fill on the shadow side of the subject's face.

 

I would have put the lamp in the bg on a dimmer and brought it out away from the wall a little.

 

(Is that you in the photos?)

[Ckulakov]

Yes, actually it is.

 

Why?

[Tim Tyler]

Why?

 

Now I won't refer to the person in the frame as 'your subject'. :)

[Ckulakov]

ha ha

[Mike Lary]

I don't shoot enough digital to be able to offer advice relating to the camera settings, but I can comment on the aesthetic and why it doesn't look like film. The big difference between the two frames is not more of a film-like quality in one. It's more that the one on the right has purpose or a specific look you were trying to achieve while the first one is very basic (light the subject and shoot). One big problem with the film-look attempt is the blown out highlights - one of the easiest ways to tell video at first glance. The color balance is out of whack, too. The white shirt looks a bit like it was tossed in the wash with the colored laundry - lots of magenta on the right and green on the left. Blacks are clipped, too. It looks like there wasn't enough data in the image for you to make the desired adjustments without adversely affecting the highlight areas. With a digital camera, I would try to get the colors right before hitting the CCD as opposed to doing it in post. Someone else mentioned getting more control over the set and lighting - I think that's great advice.

 

Without getting preachy about video vs. film, I suggest that instead of trying to make video look like film, you figure out what kind of aesthetic you can achieve with your camera while pinpointing its weaknesses and try to render your image within that framework.

 

I hope that helps. Good luck!

[David Mullen ASC]

With all the blue-ish movies ever made, I don't associate a film look with warmth.

 

It seems to me you're just confusing and associating bad lighting with video and good lighting with film. The first is crudely-lit with double shadows on the wall from the lamp and the head too close to the wall to allow it to fall off in focus or brightness.

 

The second is better because it has a sense of a single source, which looks more elegant, hits the face from a better angle, without the distracting background.

 

You should pull your subject farther away from the wall and don't dress them in a white T-shirt. You could use some soft fill, or bounce a little of the key back into the shadows, for the second shot IF you didn't want it to look so moody.

[Ckulakov]

Thanks for your Advice guys.

 

MikL - I appreciate your input. I know that it doesnt look like film and it wont with any other format unless you shoot on film, but at least it will show that I tried and put some effort into something that sets it appart from the documetary style, home video "look".

But you said that its better to get the colors right into the camera as opposed to doing it in post. AND I DID DO IT INTO THE CAMERA, the only thing I did in post is crush the blacks, and take away some saturation. You should have read my explanation more carefully. (AND about the colors of the shirt I think it did get mixed with colored laundry B) )

What do you mean by black look clipped what should I do to make it better I used a 1/2 balck promist.

 

 

Mr. Mullen - I will probably have the shirt in a darker shade, and get farther away from the wall, I will aslo bounce a soft light on the left side.

 

What do you guys think of the 1/2 black promist? Isn't it sopposed to help get rid of the clipped look and excessive sharpness and harshness of video?

 

Thank You

[David Mullen ASC]

What do you guys think of the 1/2 black promist?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Some people think diffusion like that helps take the curse off of video; I think it's debatable but if you like the way it looks, you should use it just for that reason, not because it gives a film look. The goal is to create images you like, not mimic film.

 

Consumer standard-def video relies on a lot of edge enhancement to add some sharpness to counteract a lack of resolution; this artificially sharpened look, combined with overly deep-focus, is part of the sort of "cheap video look" that people find objectionable. If you don't have better controls over the degree of edge enhancement, then diffusion helps somewhat. People also feel that the "mist" particles in the ProMists add a grain-like texture, plus it tends to lift the blacks and lower contrast a little.

 

The 1/2 Black ProMist is quite common among video shooters. I think it's fine for anything shot for viewing on TV; for a transfer to 35mm, I'd test it to make sure I wasn't losing too much sharpness.

 

But I think your goal should really be to learn how to light well, period. There isn't really such a thing as "video lighting" versus "film lighting."

[Joshua Provost]

Constantine,

 

The Black ProMist can't do a whole lot to take the edge off of video. After all, the edge enhancement (sharpening) is done in camera, after the images has gone through the filter.

 

Does your camera have any manual controls for contrast, sharpness, and saturation? I have found that I was able to get a stop to two stops additional exposure latitude out of my Panasonic GS400 camera by reducing the contast setting all the way from the default. The result is certainly not low contrast, just a better image. Also, I turn sharpness down almost all of the way, and saturation a bit. Most cameras oversharpen, overcontrast, and oversaturate by default.

 

Josh

[Ckulakov]

I dont understand why wont 1/2 balck promist, help just look at the photos doesnt it make a differance.

[David Mullen ASC]

I dont understand why wont 1/2 balck promist, help just look at the photos doesnt it make a differance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's a bit hard to understand what you're saying there.

 

Sure, the Black ProMist adds a look -- a Black ProMist look, which is pretty. But there are movies shot in film that are razor-sharp, harsh, and high-contrast, so why is a soft, diffused look necessarily a "film look"?

 

The basic fallacy in your thinking is having some limited ideas of what films look like. Over the century, we've had movies that look like "Singin in the Rain" and "Saving Private Ryan", and they don't particularly look like each other although both are shot on film.

 

The Black ProMist is a good, simple trick when you're working with a cheap camera with limited image controls. But if you get a pro video camera with controls over gamma, detail, black stretch, the color matrix, knee, etc. then you might find that the Black ProMist isn't really necessary unless you want that diffused look it creates.

 

The look of a movie is based on the mood it is trying to create, which is driven by the story. That look can be deep-focus, shallow-focus, fine-grained, grainy, saturated, desaturated, widescreen, square-screen, soft, sharp, etc. And film can create any of those looks. So the notion that the film look is the Black ProMist look is rather reductive and simplistic, although, like I said, it's a simple trick for making cheap consumer video less edgy and harsh-looking.

[Ckulakov]

If I rented a hollywood 'film' that was full-screen, razor sharp, cool and blue-ish, had deep focus, and was contrasty and oversaturated. I WOULD VERY WELL MISTAKE FOR VIDEO AND NOT VALUE IT, as much as I will value for example "Vannila Sky" unless it has a captivating story.

[David Mullen ASC]

If I rented a hollywood 'film' that was full-screen, razor sharp, cool and blue-ish, had deep focus, and was contrasty and oversaturated. I WOULD VERY WELL MISTAKE FOR VIDEO AND NOT VALUE IT, as much as I will value for example "Vannila Sky" unless it has a captivating story.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Then you have a very limited notion of the possibilities of film. Maybe it's your youth. Maybe you haven't been exposed to enough movies yet. If you saw the full-screen TV version of "Ronin", which is wide-angle, deep focus, cool and contrasty, do you think it looks like video? Do you think John Frankenheimer should have made the film telephoto, shallow-focus, warm and low-contrast just to satisfy your notions of a film look?

 

Are you going to eliminate whole swathes of artistic approaches because they remind you of video? That's like saying that you're going to write a book without any adjectives and adverbs.

 

You don't pick the look of a movie based on a "film look" or a "video look". That's completely ass-backwards thinking. You pick colors and contrast and focal length perspective and movement, etc. that tell the story in the most effective way and THEN you think of the technology and techniques that will turn your artist concept into reality. You can't say "my artistic concept for this movie is that it will be video that looks like film."

 

And you've never seen low-contrast, pastel video before? You've never seen high-contrast, saturated film images before? "Gone with the Wind" looks like it was shot on a Canon XL1 to you?

[Ckulakov]

Dear Mr.Mullen,

 

I undersatnd what you mean.

- That every movie should have a 'look' that supports the story and enhances the experiance in order to get the plot to the audiance.

 

Just in my mind movies are always soft, warm, with a blurry background. I just whant my movies to be valued more by there looks and with the cheap camera Im using I whant to hide those features.

 

I whant my short film to look soft, and warm because this is mostly a easy going, pretty, drama with a few moody and dramatic shots.

 

and the grabs I am posting including the "night for day test', and 'moody backlit scene' are all just test shots which I will refine based on your advice.

 

Also I whant to watch the the film "Ronin". What do think sets it appart from the 'video look' if it has all of videos characteristics.

 

 

Thanks for helping me discover something new and important

I learn something new everyday from you :)

[James Brown]

Just in my mind movies are always soft, warm, with a blurry background.

 

???????????

 

Have you ever been to the cinema or rented a DVD, because surely you do not believe this comment.

 

James.

[Mike Lary]

You should have read my explanation more carefully.

 

Here's some advice for you: Be specific and don't be obnoxious. When you give incomplete information and someone makes a logical assumption (as I did), don't try to correct them. You might consider not using ALL CAPS, as well, since it's universally considered to be screaming at people.

[Ckulakov]

Actually I have been to many movies and rented hundreds of DVD's. Just my cliche for movies is mostly warm and soft not to say that I havnt seen sharp and cool movies before I just never adressed it.

 

I seen movie rangeing from 'Bourne Supremacy' and 'Phonebooth' to 'Oceans Eleven and Vanilla sky' to 'Schindlers List' and and 'The Pianist' to the 'Minority Report' and 'AI' to 'Adrei Rublev' and many other Russian films.

 

But for most films I have seen the cliche' is warm and soft. I mean, maybe I havnt been paying attention, but I have only been into cinematography for the last year.

 

 

Sorry for "yelling" at you.

[Jonathan Spear]

Hey Constantine,

 

"""I seen movie rangeing from 'Bourne Supremacy' and 'Phonebooth' to 'Oceans Eleven and Vanilla sky' to 'Schindlers List' and and 'The Pianist' to the 'Minority Report' and 'AI' to 'Adrei Rublev' and many other Russian films."""

 

Oh yeah? Well I've been to McDonald's and have eaten such culinary delicacies ranging from Big Macs and Chicken Nuggets to French Fries and McChicken Sandwiches.

I've also had several McRib Sandwiches and even a McSalad.

 

"""If I rented a hollywood 'film' that was full-screen, razor sharp, cool and blue-ish, had deep focus, and was contrasty and oversaturated.I WOULD VERY WELL MISTAKE FOR VIDEO AND NOT VALUE IT, as much as I will value for example "Vannila Sky" unless it has a captivating story."""

 

It seems like you have a warped view of what filmmaking, cinematography and movies are all about. If visual beauty is so important to you maybe you should be a fashion photographer. IMO, the film industry does not need more "cliche" looking movies but fresh new ideas and looks that are inseperable from the story itself.

 

Have you seen the movie 'Open Water' or the 'Blair Witch Project'?

You know why they "worked"? Because they are truthful and don't hide behind a sometimes almost Nazi-like ideology of aesthetic beauty. Screwing a diffusion filter onto your lens, in this case, seems pretentious and like a total cop out.

 

It's like saying that makeup makes all women beautiful - when in truth it's their inner beauty and nature (the STORY in your case) that shines through and makes them beautiful and attractive.

 

I challenge you to submit a good frame grab without using your precious Black ProMist filter.

[Kyle Geerkens]

If I rented a hollywood 'film' that was full-screen, razor sharp, cool and blue-ish, had deep focus, and was contrasty and oversaturated. I WOULD VERY WELL MISTAKE FOR VIDEO AND NOT VALUE IT, as much as I will value for example "Vannila Sky" unless it has a captivating story.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I really don't think this is a mature opinion. no offence intended. Of course there are many advantages to shooting on Film... especially for the DP's options, and colour and exposure ranges. However, to say that because you 'thought' it looked like video you wouldn't value it, sounds like you've been brainwashed into believing that life is "go film or go home".

 

Personally i dont think this is the case, I shoot a lot of HD, and to hear someone say they wont respect my work is saddening.