my first post... filters and lighting?

[Guest bigblock]

You know how when you watch a movie, you know that's a movie?

And the same goes with home videos... if you watch a home video, you know it's a home video.

 

Well my question is, how can I use my XL1s and acheive the same effect as a true movie?

 

Aside from steadiness, what is there? Is it the lighting? I have a feeling it's the filter. But if you could help me out with this, that would be great.

 

If you take a shot from the roof of a building downtown with a hollywood movie camera, it looks like a movie (the texture and everything.)

If I do that, what do I need in order to acheive that. Because at this point, articifical lighting isn't playing as big a role as an indoor shot.

 

Thanks!

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

It's a lot of things. It may partly be filtration, but don't get the idea that there's a magic make-it-great filter.

 

> Well my question is, how can I use my XL1s and acheive the same

> effect as a true movie?

 

That is, to put it mildly, a rather broad question. The differences you are seeing are due to aspects of the production including, but not limited to, the camera equipment, the film stock (or type of video image sensor,) lighting, composition, production design including costume, set design and dressing, processing and postproduction colour adjustment ("grading"). Each of these is a discipline which takes decades to master and years to get even a basic feel for.

 

> Aside from steadiness, what is there?

 

Technically, your XL-1 does not resolve such a high resolution image as a 35mm motion picture camera, by a factor of six or eight. It also shoots at a different frame rate (30 as opposed to 24) and unless you put it in "frame mode" it shoots interlaced frames rather than progressive ones (look this up.) It has a much smaller dynamic range than the 35mm filmstock, that is, bright areas clip harshly to white much earlier than they do on film - this is possibly the largest inherent difference.

 

> (the texture and everything.)

 

This is the thing to think about. What you might find interesting is to take an example frame from something you've shot with your XL1, and a similar frame from an existing film, and try to be more specific about what you like and dislike about each. If you try to be specific in this way you should begin to realise what you need to do with lighting, composition and filtration on your XL1 to begin to produce images that you like.

 

Phil

[John Pytlak RIP]

BigBlock: Thousands of books and articles have been written about achieving the "Film Look". Just do a search on "film look" on the Internet. For most productions, it's what people want, just like you.

 

The surest way to achieve the true "film look" is to USE FILM! :rolleyes: B)

[Guest bigblock]

Hey guys. Thanks to both of you for answering my question. I'll be sure to look up "film look" and also to mess around with "frame mode."

 

Much thanks.

[John Pytlak RIP]

I had hoped you'd go and buy a few rolls of Kodak film. ;) B)

[Guest bigblock]

Hey guys, I was wondering if the Tiffen 812 warming filter would be a good choice in furthering my pursuit towards the film-look. If not, is there another warming filter from Tiffen that would do a better job?

 

Thanks!

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I don't think you're thinking about this correctly. If you want the image to look warm and cosy, and if you're also prepared to support the filtration with production design and lighting to further the effect, the warming filter might be quite appropriate. If you're after a chilly "Aliens" style effect, it'd be completely wrong. It's all about context and what you're after.

 

Phil

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I don't think you're thinking about this correctly. If you want the image to look warm and cosy, and if you're also prepared to support the filtration with production design and lighting to further the effect, the warming filter might be quite appropriate. If you're after a chilly "Aliens" style effect, it'd be completely wrong. It's all about context and what you're after.

 

Phil

[Rob Belics]

Going on what John has said, with apologies to bigblock, it drives me crazy when I read these digital forums and they spend more time, money and energy trying to achieve this 'film look' than anything else. What really gets me is they are always looking for a filter for EVERYTHING. "I want a filter that will give me 'The Matrix' look". One guy wanted a filter for a "Lawrence of Arabia" look(!).

[John Pytlak RIP]

One guy wanted a filter for a "Lawrence of Arabia" look(!).

 

The answer is 65mm FILM, and the genius of Freddie Young and David Lean! B)

[David Mullen ASC]

I started out shooting Super-8 and probably my biggest question was always "what makes a professional movie look different than my movies?" It's how I learned to compose, to edit, to light, etc. It's not a simple thing like using a filter.

 

It's funny but even now when I take my wife to a screening of something I shot, I ask her "does it look like a real movie?" I'm still don't know!

[Guest bigblock]

Oh hey guys, I know for a fact that there's more to it than a simple filter...

But do recognize that I said I wanted to further my quest. The filter is only one thing, I'm not saying it's the only thing.

 

I'm trying to eliminate the sharpness of the contrast and the filter was one way of doing (and I just wanted to know if the 812 from TIffen was a good choice.)

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, a warming filter like an 812 has nothing to do with sharpness or contrast, just color. If you want a warmer image, go ahead and use it. But plenty of movies have cold images too.

 

If you want to reduce sharpness, first lower the edge enhancement ("Detail") in your video camera (if shooting video and if you have manual controls over that), then consider using a diffusion filter. If you want to lower contrast, one method is a contrast-lowering filter (Low Cons, Ultra Cons, etc.) or a diffusion filter that also lowers contrast (ProMist, Fog, etc.)

 

Low-contrast filters and diffusion filters are a somewhat intertwined category since many methods of softening the definition of an image also lower contrast, and lower contrast images also tend to look softer, etc.

[Rachel Oliver]

David;

In relation to filters how did you achieve the halo's in Northfork? It was a while back but I remember James Woods and "Willis" walking into an interior and a lovely Halo appearing in the highlights, Does my memory serve me correctly? Just interested about different ways to achieve them?

Thanks

Olly

[Michael Nash]

David was nice enough to include a "flashing and filtration guide" for Northfork in the article here:

http://www.cinematography.com/articles/northfork/

[Sam Wells]

It's funny but even now when I take my wife to a screening of something I shot, I ask her "does it look like a real movie?" I'm still don't know!

When Jackson Pollock was finished with something he painted, he would sometimes ask Lee Krasner "Is that a painting"

 

Altho he probably leaned a little more toward the abstract side than you....

 

Don't worry David, your work looks like real movies !!

 

 

I've used the Black Promist to "de-edgify" DV a bit, but only light grades like 1/4, don't want to throw away essential sharpness with those small CCD's etc.... (overdiffused video always has that Hallmark Greeting Card or "Honeymoon Suite in the Poconos commercial" look to it...

 

-Sam

[David Mullen ASC]

The halation in "Northfork" was mostly due to ProMist filters and heavy backlighting.

[Dragan]

Hi guys...I am new here and i am wondering if you can maybe help me out....I currently work for Canon-Europe and I have a great interest in knowing more about you and your needs in cameras.....

 

For example.....is it of any importance that the cameras are flexible?? and what does flexibility mean to you??

 

THANKS

[Tenolian Bell]

I guess you need to put flexibility into a context. Camera operation, ergonomics, medium?

[David Mullen ASC]

You look at what the practical needs of the production are an order equipment accordingly. For example, I only had the big, heavy Primo anamorphics on "Northfork" but I knew that there would be no handheld or Steadicam work and no small spaces (OK, there were a FEW that I managed to squeeze the camera and lens into...)

 

I was using the Panaflasher so I wanted to avoid using a B-camera that couldn't use it, like an Arri-2C.

 

But on another show, I might have other requirements that would require I rethink my equipment needs.

 

On my current show, I'm sticking to using two film stocks (5217 and 5218) because I'm on location and don't want to deal with inventory problems from using too many stocks. Plus I might have so many overcast days combined with using anamorphic lenses that while I would normally also carry 5245, I might not end up using all I order of that stock.

 

If I knew I were going to be handholding the camera for most of the show, then I'd take that into account.