Steve Yedlin's film emulation in digital imagery

[Carl Looper]

You sir are a damn fine technical "poet".

 

"It is the depth in film that we appreciate. Not the graininess. The graininess is the cost. The depth is the benefit."

C

 

Thanks Nick. That is really the central point.

 

Attempts at film emulation are based on a misunderstanding of what one is otherwise appreciating in film. The emulator operates on the assumption that all the information you need is in the captured video (where cameras such as the Alexa will be treated as some sort of God, until the next one comes along), and that the only remaining task is simply to process that information to "look like" film. Some resort to transferring the video to film and back again (a costly exercise) as if that will improve the situation. There is this completely silly assumption (indeed a condescension) that it's the grain that is being appreciated in film. There is no understanding whatsoever (it would seem on many occasions) that the grain is not just some after-the-fact surface effect - rather that it plays an extremely important role, that must be implemented ahead of quantisation. Not as an after effect.

 

 

C

Edited January 18, 2016 by Carl Looper

[David Mullen ASC]

 

Thanks Nick. That is really the central point.

 

Attempts at film emulation are based on a misunderstanding of what one is otherwise appreciating in film. The emulator operates on the assumption that all the information you need is in the captured video (where cameras such as the Alexa will be treated as some sort of God, until the next one comes along), and that the only remaining task is simply to process that information to "look like" film. Some resort to transferring the video to film and back again (a costly exercise) as if that will improve the situation. There is this completely silly assumption (indeed a condescension) that it's the grain that is being appreciated in film. There is no understanding whatsoever (it would seem on many occasions) that the grain is not just some after-the-fact surface effect - rather that it plays an extremely important role, that must be implemented ahead of quantisation. Not as an after effect.

 

 

C

 

Yes, but what's your real-world solution if you had to shoot on a digital camera and wanted it to look like it was shot on film (or if someone hired you to do this)?

[Carl Looper]

 

Yes, but what's your real-world solution if you had to shoot on a digital camera and wanted it to look like it was shot on film (or if someone hired you to do this)?

 

Defying the laws of physics isn't really a good career choice.

 

I'd just say no to someone who hired me to do this. And otherwise attempt to educate them on why I'm saying no.

 

However, one could suggest certain effects they might have in mind - that don't look like film but might look like something else they have in mind.

 

If we relax the camera requirements a little we can certainly entertain some alternative technology that might result in a digital image that looked like film (transferred to digital). The obvious answer, of course, is to shoot film, but lets rule that out. Based on the discussion an alternative, if somewhat exotic idea (the camera rig would look very strange), might be to build some sort of aerial imaging system that interposed neutrally exposed and processed film (with it's grain) between the scene and the sensor.

 

Personally I prefer the way video looks without any of this. Video has it's own charms. Just as film has it's.

 

But I'm always up for experimentation.

 

C

Edited January 19, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Robin R Probyn]

But a working DP will usually have to take a big shoot even if its being shot digitally .. must be only a handful of people who can either turn down a big film or demand it be shot on film..

 

Its fine to postulate over a cappuccino .. or have a preference.. but in real life.. if its your job.. you would have to shoot digital and make it look the best you can..

Edited January 19, 2016 by Robin R Probyn

[Tyler Purcell]

Iam one of the people who does camera work as a job.. in my field..TV and corporate .. film is not shot at all.. zero..

Yea and who would shoot ENG (TV), Commercial or Corporate event on film? I mean, if you're best quality playback device is 1080p, I mean film is completely irrelevant. The benefits of film; longevity, high resolution, better dynamic range, more color space and the film "look" are pretty wasted on 8 bit 4:2:0 delivery formats. That's why I haven't invested in a 4k digital camera yet. Who is paying for me to store 4k files? Who is paying me to upgrade my computer and software to edit 4k and who is going to watch something in 4k? Heck, Pro Res HQ @ 23.98 10 bit 4:2:2 is actually over-kill for any broadcast or internet deliverable... which is why I have pocket cameras. :)

 

I deliver to broadcasters every week and believe it or not, most of the guys I deal with are still 720/59.94 and won't take anything else. Most of the corporate stuff I do (educational videos) are actually 480 because they still burn DVD's and they don't want the high bandwidth usage on their servers. I had to teach them how to deal with 16:9 material! I'm like guys... it's 2015 here and HD has been around for two decades!

 

I mean, longevity is the key with film. If your product is designed to be watched once or twice and then thrown away, what's the point? If it's a long-term product that has long standing impact like a dramatic television series, feature film, documentary, anything that should stand the test of time, then film should be thought about, especially if film will be used as a presentation method. Ohh and the audience does care, nobody would have seen Hateful Eight had it not been in 70mm.

[Robin R Probyn]

Theres no documentaries shot on film anymore.. even very top end..unless its a totally indie self produced one.. but also its not 8 bit 422 anymore either.. even the lowley F5 with RAW recorder can do 4K 16 bit RAW.. but its mostly 10 bit Slog.. corporate is the same.. I think only news,event and sports is now 8 bit 422.. .. alot of corporate shoots are quite big budgets now.. as they realize the web is getting to more people than $1 million + TV broadcast slots .. esp any thing targeting Yoofs..

 

TBH I think people would have gone to see a Tarantino film .. if it had been shot on F55 or Alexa.. sure there was a buzz about the 70mm.. but look at the reactions.. oh its a bit boring as its in one room.. the lighting is a bit un motivated .. they slap the girl around too much.. nothing to do with 70mm..

 

My point more to Carl.. is there arnt alot of people that can/would just turn down a shoot if its not film as he implies he would..as not a good career choice to defy physic,s.. its not a great career choice to turn down all digital work and tell the producers they are philistines .. well not till you have a few Oscar noms to your name.. :)

Edited January 19, 2016 by Robin R Probyn

[Carl Looper]

My point more to Carl.. is there arnt alot of people that can/would just turn down a shoot if its not film as he implies he would..as not a good career choice to defy physic,s.. its not a great career choice to turn down all digital work and tell the producers they are philistines .. well not till you have a few Oscar noms to your name.. :)

 

Its not that I would necessarily turn down jobs as such. I could always offer an alternative. For example, if someone offered to pay me to jump off a cliff, I won't necessarily say no - I could talk them into ensuring a hang glider was included as part of that picture (metaphorically speaking, because there's no way I'd fly a hang glider).

 

But if they were truly insistent that I jump to my death, then I probably would have to consider saying no.

 

The thing is that most clients don't really know what they want anyway. You end up sort of telling them what they want, more than them telling you. And I mean that in the kindest of ways. They are seeking your help as much as you are seeking their money. The thing is that you have to manage expectations. The worst thing is saying - oh yes - I can make video look like film - and then delivering something to which they respond: that doesn't look like film. You have to be a little frank sometimes. A better approach is to say something like: this process won't look like film (because that's impossible) but perhaps this alternative is what you might like to see. Not necessarily in so many words but to that effect.

 

I've never called anyone a philistine. I did call a producer a p-r-i-c-k the other day but that's not normal for me. But I'm sure it must be for him.

 

C

Edited January 19, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Carl Looper]

And to be clear, although I shoot film, I shoot just as much video - if not more. Video has it's own very cool qualities. I love it's sharpness for one. And it's cleanness. But when I get the opportunity to change gears and shoot film, I'm in a completely different world with an entirely different beast, with it's own special qualities, requiring it's own set of ideas, methods, techniques, etc.

 

And then there is the hybrid domain, where one shoots film but does a digital post, or mixing film and video together, or building some hybrid rig such as the previously mentioned experimental camera.

 

C

[Robin R Probyn]

haha ..I,d love to know why.. re the P R I C K comment !

 

I was reading something the other day about film dying out and Labs all closing... cant for the life of me remember who.. but to the effect.. as soon as people hear that something is going away.. old building,newspaper .. fav desert .. suddenly everyone wants it back,or to stay.. but the writing is on the wall.. and eventually X will go..

[Carl Looper]

Film will be around as long as there are those who use it. It doesn't require a huge market - a niche one can work and has worked, if sometimes close to the proverbial cliff. Once upon a time a lot was done with paper. Today a lot less is done with paper, but that hasn't stopped some niche boutique businesses from making and selling hand made paper for a significant amount of money. For there is a market for such: artists who will buy it and use it and sell the result. There is an economy around these things. It's not the mass market, but it is a market.

 

C

Edited January 19, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Mark Dunn]

Well, you can make your own paper, but you can hardly make your own film. Even Ferrania is having a bit of bother ATM.

[Robin R Probyn]

I guess the only thing that would kill it for movie production would be the labs actually not making enough money to be viable... have to be bought by the studio,s or DP consortiums .. or all the studio,s decided to just axe all film production if it somehow became too expensive.. price of silver went through the roof ?

[Manu Delpech]

It's not gonna be a problem. The mobile film lab is a great idea and will be replicated, Kodak is reopening a couple of labs, they might even turn in a profit in the near future.

[Robin R Probyn]

OK good.. yeah might survive.. Im not sure it matters as now digital camera,s are so good.... and the camera work should never be the most important thing in a film either .. hopefully it augments a great story .. make a film copy for archive only..

[Jay Young]

I was having this argument just last evening. A director friend of mine had some friends over, and he mentioned that I shoot on film. That, of course, started the questions about workflow and money... the usual things when younger people have never been introduced to film.

 

Finally the BUTs started: But with digital you can see if you got the shot or not, But with digital you don't have to send it off anywhere, BUT with digital everything is right there - This is the point at which I realized these young persons are not anti-film, they are SCARED. There discipline level when shooting is to immediately look at the footage and reshoot anything if it doesn't look exactly right. They don't trust anyone in the workflow chain except the monitor on the back of the camera!

 

I know first hand shooting last week with a digital camera who's monitor was trusted but when looking at the footage on a computer was at least 3 stops underexposed! It was simply due to the camera monitor being out of calibration and providing a much brighter image. At least this wasn't anything important, and just a test for something down the road.

 

Of course no one last night mentioned making digital look like film, but they did start to say that affordable cameras can now shoot in 4k, but sadly I didn't have time to argue that point. It was more interesting to me that the rest of these people, some who are film students and others who are professionals didn't trust film yet my director friend for whom I'm shooting a spot soon stated that he felt "his images will be in good hands" because I have celluloid experience. At least he didn't ask me to make it "look like film" I'm going to have to spend plenty of time fiddling with this camera he wants to use to make a pretty picture anyhow.

[Carl Looper]

Well, you can make your own paper, but you can hardly make your own film. Even Ferrania is having a bit of bother ATM.

 

Well it depends on what part of the production line you work (so to speak). I know how to make paper so I can (in principle) work that end of that production line, but I don't know how to make film, so I'd be somewhat useless if tasked to do so. That doesn't mean nobody else can (obviously). For example, Kodak (amongst others) know how to make film, and so they can make it - if there are suitable number of those like me who buy it.

 

The point is that Kodak can survive as a niche business. Just like those who make handmade paper do. Or those that make any other niche material. It doesn't necessarily have to be a big market. So long as there are enough who buy it.

 

And like artists who buy handmade paper, there will be artists (or whatever else you want to call buyers of film) that buy film.

 

I'm not suggesting handmade paper and film are the same in any other way.

 

C

Edited January 19, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Manu Delpech]

@Jay: I definitely get that, I'm going to be directing my first thing with a real crew very soon, and from the very beginning, I've made it a point to shoot on 2 perf, but I do get those moments where I'm like "I'd probably feel much more comfortable shooting on the Alexa, knowing what I'm getting straight away, and not having to stress out about anything, especially since I'm very new to all this", especially since there's no lab in NOLA, but there's Crawford up in Atlanta, so in my mind, I'm thinking that the lab is only an hour and 30 min away via plane and it makes it a bit more reassuring, but I get it and it is scary. That's why I'm trying to find a DP with great references who has quite a bit of experience with celluloid, that way, I know I can trust him with that, I think you need that reassurance, unless you're making all those big projects and have enough experience to know not to be afraid.

 

The ease of use and convenience of digital is certainly very very attractive. However, if you could benefit from having Alpha Lab's mobile film lab right there onsite next to your locations, then it's really a no brainer to shoot film.

[Tyler Purcell]

I was reading something the other day about film dying out and Labs all closing... cant for the life of me remember who.. but to the effect.. as soon as people hear that something is going away.. old building,newspaper .. fav desert .. suddenly everyone wants it back,or to stay.. but the writing is on the wall.. and eventually X will go..

Film died due to big businessmen not understanding it's value, no different then newspapers. It had very little to do with acquisition and everything to do with distribution. The amount of print stock produced far exceeded the amount of camera negative used. Same goes for newspapers, the distribution medium is the key, internet distribution has little to no value. The businessmen didn't understand that at first and now they're backpedaling like crazy. The precipitous move to digital distribution also killed many of the low-cost venue's and raised the pricing at others, which lowered the total viewership. In fact, unique non-repeat viewership in cinema's has been steadily decreasing since the heights of 2009, even though 2015 was a good year thanks to big franchise films coming back; Jurassic Park, Max Max, Star Wars, so far the data still puts viewership pretty even to 2014.

 

No, I don't feel X will go away. Newspapers are actually slowly becoming more popular again because people are tired of internet advertisements. Motion Picture film is having a resurgence because the businessmen are out of gimmicks and we've come full circle back to the early days of widescreen where 70mm was the big way to bring people back to the cinema. We're charging people more money yet giving them 70 year old technology... welcome to the entertainment industry! I actually feel this resurgence of film will be bigger then people initially let on, especially since most filmmakers have already done their "digital" experimentation and those who can shoot film appear to be going back. The big problem today is the ease of film processing and instant dailies. Once someone figures that out (more mobile lab trucks) then there is no excuse to not shoot film and distribute in 70mm. For better or worse, Quentin set something in motion and I truly feel it's going to be the future of high-end distribution.

[Robin R Probyn]

I agree money will always be the deciding factor.. studio,s are in business to make max profits.. or they,ll get taken over by the other one that does .. but if digital becomes alot cheaper for shooting/post/distribution.. through some techie break through .. apart from directors that can pretty much guarantee big box office.. Im sure most will be told its digital or nothing..

[Robin R Probyn]

"I know first hand shooting last week with a digital camera who's monitor was trusted but when looking at the footage on a computer was at least 3 stops underexposed! It was simply due to the camera monitor being out of calibration and providing a much brighter image. At least this wasn't anything important, and just a test for something down the road."

 

Jay.. wow you might want to get a new DP and or DIT.. being at least 3 stops under is a bit more than a calibration problem.. and who was looking through the view finder.. . or the brightness was way down on the computer .. :)

Edited January 20, 2016 by Robin R Probyn

[Jay Young]

"I know first hand shooting last week with a digital camera who's monitor was trusted but when looking at the footage on a computer was at least 3 stops underexposed! It was simply due to the camera monitor being out of calibration and providing a much brighter image. At least this wasn't anything important, and just a test for something down the road."

 

Jay.. wow you might want to get a new DP and or DIT.. being at least 3 stops under is a bit more than a calibration problem.. and who was looking through the view finder.. . or the brightness was way down on the computer .. :)

 

It was a.... teachable moment! I was trying to get the guy to understand the type of look from the lighting, he was using photo strobes, as they were already setup in the studio - I never got the chance to say I could have lit him and the green screen in about 15 minutes with a couple of tungstens. Anyhow, I was not looking through the camera or at the back of it, I was trying to flag his strobes which kept spilling over onto the subject from lighting the background - another teachable moment.

 

Anyhow, it was still just a "look" test that we hadn't planned on but the actor showed up to do some other work and I said HEY! Lets shoot this still test right quick. It was really my fault for not having everyone prepared before hand. If you're curious, here is the before and after.

 

 

I kept saying "I want a REAL, OLD SCHOOL, Rim/Hair light coming from BEHIND him...I want his hair to GLOW " that took some coaxing. Seems someone missed the first 50 years of photography history.

Anyhow, In that before shot there are... two strobes lighting the green screen, of which one was malfunctioning and blasting full power no matter what. Each of those was flagged off so it didn't spill on the actor. The guy is about 15 feet in front of the green. There is a large strobe in a softbox with I believe 1/2 white diffusion, and the same above and behind his head. Camera center, key at 45-degrees, back rim at 180-degrees. There is a bounce on the left just giving his face a bit more depth as it was TOO dark without it. Really didn't have a major issue except for a tiny piece of his hair that wouldn't cooperate with the chroma key... turned out ok I thought.

 

I still think I could have done just as well with some HP5, and my K1000 Speed Graphic! Technology... lol. Next time, I'm just going to light it with tungstens - strobes be damned.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Jay Young

[Robin R Probyn]

Hi Jay.. like the image.. WW2 Spitfire pilot look.. never have so few ...

 

Sorry wasn't getting your case.. just thought the DP must have had a look through the VF at some stage.. and have seen its very dark.. at 3 stops + under..

[Bill DiPietra]

Very nice! I scrolled through the thread so quickly from the bottom up, I thought that was a still from an old classic.

 

Nicely done.

[Carl Looper]

That classic studio look has a strange kind of effect. It is a sense of the external world being contained in some sort of way. Boxed. Enveloped. Wrapped. A form of possession perhaps. Or commodification. There is a disconcerting stifling aspect to it - completely exploitable. A sense of aphixiation. Of no way out. The world of the Truman Show.

 

And yet the films of the classic period, while creating a sense of an enclosed world, manage to keep their worlds open in some sort of way. In film noir, the world seems to end in infinite blackness beyond the walls, or the fog, or the street light. A psychotic enclosure. We might begin within an unknown space in which someone is being interrogated, and they'll think back to a time in which all was daylight and happiness, and everyone going about their business without any issue. Wide shots of a cheery world, but the voice-over from the future will contain this world, and the world will steer us back towards it's origin within the future which recalls it - as if the daylight were someone else's story - or some fiction. And yet it's done in a way that feels as if it were the outside world conspiring in some sort of dark and mysterious way to become theatre. The growing claustrophobia will have has it's origin within this larger, if unknown, psychotic reality. Not within the narrator. It becomes the complete opposite of that which starts in theatre and otherwise conspires/aspires to become the shape of a larger reality.

 

C

Edited January 20, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Mark Dunn]

 

Well it depends on what part of the production line you work (so to speak). I know how to make paper so I can (in principle) work that end of that production line, but I don't know how to make film, so I'd be somewhat useless if tasked to do so. That doesn't mean nobody else can (obviously). For example, Kodak (amongst others) know how to make film, and so they can make it - if there are suitable number of those like me who buy it.

 

C

I said your own and I said hardly. It was obvious that I meant that an individual can make paper, from scratch and from start to finish, himself, but that it was inordinately difficult for him to make film, from scratch and from start to finish, himself. Kodak isn't a person.

 

If the industrial manufacture of paper ended, you could collect rags or wood pulp, build screens and presses, and make your own. If the industrial manufacture of film ended, you couldn't build a coating line, a chiller, or formulate your own acetate. You couldn't make your own film. The analogy with hand-made paper isn't a good one.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Mark Dunn