Check this out

Ckulakov · July 23, 2005

I have submitted many frame grabs without my black promist many times. I only use it on close ups not wides and mediums.

And yes I have seen "open water" and I dont think it was good at all not because of the cnematography but because of the story and actors. I think the film just didnt work up to its potential. Maybe it did work but it could have been allot better story.

Edited July 23, 2005 by Ckulakov

Simon Wyndham · July 24, 2005

Ckulakov, the main thing that seperates film and video, generally, is movement cadence, and the frequencies of detail that each medium caters for better.

It appears to me that you are seeing things in DVD transfers that add in edge enhancement to films as making them look like video. The film look is full of many, many variables.

I have just written an article on my website about filmlook, or at least 'generic' film look. As David Mullen has pointed out on occasion there are many different filmstocks with different kinds of looks and capabilities.

My article is up at http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk/camerasetup.htm

Robert Hughes · July 25, 2005

Simon, thanks for a useful and informative article decribing gamma correction settings on the XDCAM. That's the kind of information that keeps me returning to this forum.

Algis Kemezys · July 25, 2005

Yes I agree that the second shot has the format and the warm tonality of film.At first glance comparing them the second is much more pleasing with the eye. I think video tends to be cool so I prefer to warm it up myself. Usually post production with the 3way color corrector. It works pretty well. I think a big bad part of DV is that it has too much Depth of Field. I think just working to achieve a softer focused background is what it is all about. The tonality of the film is so important.Deciding right off the top what the tonality is range is going be be. I heard Diane Keaton in one of her films did not allow the color blue and focused on greens and browns. These concerns answered with proper cinematic lighting and thing start looking pretty acceptably like film.

I am thinking now that if you shoot the scene 3 ways. Once out of focus to put back in later. One with the actors in a wide shot. Then another in a studio setting to add the out of focus scenes like in CGI processing. So that you can have good 3/4 shots of the actors with the background live and soft focus that would be apropriate to the eye.

David Mullen ASC · July 25, 2005

You guys would be nuts to elimate the color blue from your visual vocabulary just because it reminds you of video!

It didn't stop Kieslowski from making "Blue" the first film in his color trilogy...

You really have to get off this notion that warmed-up video looks inherently more film-like even though films can often be blue. It's going to lead to sloppy thinking as artists. Unless you want to make all your movies look dipped in butterscotch like Woody Allen has in his post-Gordon Willis days.

sneeze proof · July 25, 2005

My view, as a current editor and complete novice videographer is this:

the first pic looks like you don't know what you're doing

the second pic looks like you you do know what you are doing

that's all

The phrase 'film look' like most of these people have been saying, is completely misinterpreted, and those two pictures there demonstrate this point.

You say pic 1 looks like video and pic 2 looks like film.

If that first pic was shot on film, it wouldn't look any better, and I bet you if you saw that on TV, you would pass that off as 'video' because it has that 'video' look you descibe, even if it was shot on film.

I have seen some pieces shot on 16mm that you'd swear were shot using a mobile phone camera.

I have also seen stuff shot on a $300 camera that you'd swear was done by a high end production company.

why? pre production

Obviously you have a look in mind that you want to achieve, and by all means, keep striving to achieve it. Take the advise of the people here about the production values because you will find out from experience, that this is the way to get the look you want.

you have the right idea about test shots and experimenting with gear - you'll get your look if you keep that up, but do treat the advise here with respect - there is an incredible amount of talent floating around on this forum

and like TSM pointed out, I'd much rather watch a great story shot on cheap dv cameras, than a crap story shot on billion dollar super fantastic film

you'll see past a low budget within the first couple of minutes of a good story

Edited July 25, 2005 by sneeze proof

Mike Lary · July 25, 2005

It didn't stop Kieslowski from making "Blue" the first film in his color trilogy...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another example of the color blue being intentionally used in film, but to a much lesser extent than in "Blue", is a love scene in Manhunter. They gelled the windows to get a 'bathed in blue' sunset effect. I think it looks pretty sweet, and it doesn't remind me of video in any way.

Simon Wyndham · July 25, 2005

You guys would be nuts to elimate the color blue from your visual vocabulary just because it reminds you of video!

It didn't stop Kieslowski from making "Blue" the first film in his color trilogy...

You really have to get off this notion that warmed-up video looks inherently more film-like even though films can often be blue. It's going to lead to sloppy thinking as artists. Unless you want to make all your movies look dipped in butterscotch like Woody Allen has in his post-Gordon Willis days.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. I have never understood why some think that 'warmness' equals film. Saving Private Ryan is about as desaturated as a picture can get without becoming black and white. Payback is very blue indeed. The Matrix is predominantly green. Anyone ever seen The Deadly Affair. Its one of my favourite films. Apparently Lumet used out of date filmstock for the ultimate in the grimy look.

(correction, apparently he flashed the film)

Edited July 25, 2005 by Simon Wyndham

Ckulakov · July 28, 2005

Here is a update of what you guys told me.

I couldnt really have the background to far because I dont have enough room.

AND I agree with you guys about how it doesnt matter how something looks as long as it supports the story and and does not distract the viewer.

But anyway this scene is sopposed to look elegant, warm and soft because this is a pretty and easy going scene.

Here is the new grab.

Edited July 28, 2005 by Ckulakov

David Mullen ASC · July 28, 2005

That's pretty good -- now just do thirty or more set-ups like that a day and you can be a cinematographer! Just joking.

I like it. I might be tempted to either put a little more light on his hair to separate it or put a faint glow on the books behind the darkest part of his head to create a separation, but honestly it's not always necessary to do that because it can look too "lit" if you go too far and make it "perfect".

Besides, since you can't throw the books out of focus, keeping them dark is a good idea. The other option is to put a faint spot-glow or slash of light at the bottom right corner of the frame on the books just to keep the background from being too monotonous.

And you're correct in thinking that the reason for the scene being warm is the mood you want to create, not whether it looks film or video-ish.

I also like how you've kept the person to one side of the frame rather than centering too much.

Tim Tyler · July 28, 2005

Nice job, Ckulakov.

Maybe up the brightness on the lamp/dimmera bit, but not so far that it's brightest part is pure white. Your composition makes me feel like the light on your face is cast from the practical lamp, which is a good thing.