Film Look

[pcfilm]

Hi,
I'm going to buy, probably, an brevis35 Kit for my cameras (Z1 &/or XHA1) but I wish to know what other (post production or other) I can use to have a really FILM LOOK in my future videos.
Thank you.

[Luis Caffesse]

The best thing you can invest in is time to learn lighting techniques.
THAT is what is going to make the most difference.

[TimurCivan]

OK.... Im sticking this....

This question has been raised alot, and its literally like saying, what car can i buy to become a F1 driver? Well its not the car.... its the pit crew, the training, the practice, the funding, the management... etc.. its alot of work.

The "Film Look" can mean several different things. There is the "Hollywood movie" look, then there is the "big budget Commercial" look. Then there is the physical attributes of capturing images on Film.

Lets try to seperate and dissect the idea. The "Film Look" most people are interested in really has little to do with the camera and lenses. At least 50% of the look of a film is determined by the Art director, location scout, and set designer. Thats a MAJOR element in the "film look". The simple answer here is TEXTURE TEXTURE TEXTURE. The more visual texture the set has more it will look "Film".

Notice how every surface is "painted" literally or at least with light.... And the image is racy too so it helps the mood :)
http://www.lynnebryan.co.uk/regular.jpg
notice the surface textures.....
http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images%5C618%5C59500.jpg
This is From "Escape From New York" notice how eery square inch of the set is covered in something.....
http://www.escapefromnewyork.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/015photo.jpg

Remeber that the human eye will forgive alot of imperfection when it is engaged in something visually interesting, especially when its seeing it with the live eye. That sunset you saw last week that was so beautiful, suddenly looks crappy in that digital photo you took of it, because thoes power lines running across, and the ugly building on the left didint seem to bother you when you were looking at it with you naked eye. In a 2D world, all thoes little detials matter. This is why you must be very partcular when composing shots and selecting locations.

Now that you got yourself a ROCKIN location, you artdirector has put up some beautiful textured wallpaper and found you vintage furniture, now the next phase in the "film look" comes into the equasion. The light. Essentially, what youre trying to do is just exaggerate the natural lighting so that its bright enough to reach an exposure in your camera.

Now here is the real "art" part of being a cinematographer. the trick is to balance the lighting to your set, artdirection, wardrobe, and visual pallete of the director. Here is when your camera choice begins to have an effect on your film. And believe me, the differences between an Sony EX, HVX200 or XHA1 arent going to make or break your film at this point. Essentially, if your working with lets say 35mm film, you know that you have a good 10 stops of safe exposure to work with. Your middle grey is properly exposed (most flesh tones are near middle grey), and now you can start crafting your image by creating shadows and highlights with kicker lights and flags. If you want a naturalistic look, keeping the contrast low, with minimal highlights is desireable for some. If the film is a horror film, a starker, more moody lighting scheme is neccesary. maybe as high as 10:1 if you liek the whites a bit blown out, and the blacks DEAD black. However, if your shooting the same scene in Video, your dynamic range is more limited. the camera is probably only able to safely handle 5-6 stops of dynamic range. So in this case the conservative 4:1 lighting ratio from film will start to look more contrasty, and moody on video. THIS is a big reason why many cinematographers choose shoot on Film, they have more room to play with light in the higher dynamic range of film. It offers you more control.

An example of a high Contrast image:
http://static.flickr.com/89/243675451_260c3b446a_o.jpg

A lower contrast image:
http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/McGrawHill/Encyclopedia/images/CE603200FG0010.gif

Notice how the blacks arent as rich in the second image, and there is almost nothign over exposed in the B&W picture.

Essentially its important to try to keep the exposure of the picture within the limits of your chosen recording medium. This is why sometimes you see when shooting exterior scenes on pro shoots the DP chooses to put up a 10K and a scrim to fill in the actors a bit when they are being lit by the sun. its keeps the contrast ratio on the face within acceptable limits.

Finally, there is lens choice and Camera choice. SD cameras can help hide some of the flaws in an actors face, poor set design, and pancake make up.

Where as HD and Film can exaggerate these short comings because of the clarity and resolution of the mediums. This is also why shallow DOF is desireable. The soft background can help sell the world the charachters live in.

This is why the 35mm adapters are becoming so popular amongst the "small HD" camera owners. The adapters mimick the look of 35mm film cameras, the medium of choice for high end production.

So all in all the "Film Look" is an assemblage of many tightly woven factors. Its alot of work, but can lead to great results.



Heres an example of minimal art direction. A film i shot in a white walled apartment. I did what i could with framing a nice chinese screen in the background... but every other space in the room was all white.

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/2750/1171949974.jpg

and a shot with a bit more art direction.... A fully built set, made from flats, painted canvas and tons of antique furniture.

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/2939/1169359059.jpg

[

[Jeff Anderson]

wow great post Timur - I've never given that much thought to set dressing and such playing such a big role in the "film look". Definitely given me alot to think about... Thanks for taking the time to post all this!

[Tom Marshall]

Great post, Timur. Thanks for taking the time to put that up. :)

[TimurCivan]

no prob you guys. Its important stuff.

[Kholi]

Good post, Timur. You should put up a few examples of a not-so-film-look for comparison. Drab/white walls, empty sets, that sort-a thing; for comparison.

[TimurCivan]

Funny you mention that Kholi, cause i did exactly that...

[pcfilm]

Thank you very much Timur!
Anyway any other suggests about post prod filters? anyone use Digital Fusion?

[videoamater]

Cool stuff,thank you Timur!:)

[bilgami]

i love all the looks that the 35mm adapters can give you, but i was wondering if these adapters are being used to shoot weddings?

[Kholi]

One major issue was the idea that there wouldn't be much light at a wedding. However, with say the Brevis or Letus Extreme, that could probably be an option.

Just go naked indoors where there's no light (the dance) and adapter outside or where there's plenty of light (leaving the chapel).

[bilgami]

One major issue was the idea that there wouldn't be much light at a wedding. However, with say the Brevis or Letus Extreme, that could probably be an option.

Just go naked indoors where there's no light (the dance) and adapter outside or where there's plenty of light (leaving the chapel).


that makes sense
thanx!!

[Kholi]

Forgot to mention that there will be a difference in the footage's look. Not just the selective focus, but it'll look different so you'd have to figure out how to match it to the naked cam.

That's what I'm attempting to do, myself. I haven't found a solution to make the naked HVX footage match the look of the adapter footage just yet. Aram suggested a 1pixel blur, I'll have to expirement.

[TimurCivan]

1 pixel may be too much. but shoot like cinegamma D when shooting naked and Bpress when shooting adapter. that may matchthem up a bit.

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

on FCP expiriment between point 1 and point 25

[Lenilenapi]

I would never change gammas like that to match the adapter to a naked camera. It's far too extreme a change in my experience. Personally I never shoot with BPress anyway. Its definately a look, and needs to be chosen carefully.

The simplest thing to do is probably shoot with a Promist 1/4 or 1/2. That should take the edge of the normal camera footage. Before changing the gammas or other parameters, look at what your images look like.

Different 35mm lenses may have more or less contrast. So will different adapters. The adapters will also vary in how much diffusion they add. You can compensate for that by using different detail settings.
They will also tend to have a different color cast. My Nikons for example tend to be slightly warmer than the naked HVX.

There is no magic bullet though you need to use your own eyes.

- Lenny Levy

[shivrajs]

nice.
Also helps to collaborate with a really good production designer and create a visual palette, it is really difficult to "fix it in post".
off topic: timur, when did upgrade to HVX?

[shortnstout]

There is no magic bullet though you need to use your own eyes.

- Lenny Levy

That's funny :happy:. Actually I find Magic Bullet the program to be a little helpful when matching the diffusion. I never use their presets because they are so extreme and odd looking, but you can change the white and black diffusion in there nicely. If i want to match stock lens to my Letus/Zeiss setup I can get pretty close by changing camera settings a little (primarily, lowering detail for stock) and adding some contrast, warmth, and diffusion with Magic Bullet (but avoid over doing any of these changes, its little changes to many settings that makes it work). Very good point above about different 35mm lenses effecting contrast, saturation, sharpness, etc, differently.

[TimurCivan]

i got my hvx about a year ago.... though im itching for an hpx500....

[Lenilenapi]

shortnstout,
My apologies, I meant the expression "magic bullet" not the program. I meant there is no simple "press this button" solution , but you haev to use your eyes to do matching.
I have limited experience in post and was only talking about matching during shooting. I bow to your greater knowledge and perhaps there literally is a "magic bullet" in this case. However even then you would need to use your eyes & skill to make it work rather than apply the "match to Redrock & nikon" filter.

Lenny Levy

[shortnstout]

I knew you meant the expression "magic bullet." I just thought it was a funny coincidence that there IS actually a program that is in part used for this very purpose. I wasn't trying to sound like I know everything about post color correction and am superior to you. Its fine you were just talking about shooting, I was just letting the user know of another tool they can use to get the shots in the final output to match up.
On THAT note, in Magic Bullet the program you can save custom filters so you could have one called "match to Redrock & nikon" that you throw on your footage to do just that. But of course you'd have to set that up and also make little tweaks anyway. I've always thought the product name was misleading but it is a good tool.

i guess there is no magic bullet in conveying tone over a forum.
i still love you.

[Lenilenapi]

Well... if you can come up with the "match to Redrock & nikon" look then I will stand completely corrected! Unfortunately I guess even every "magic bullet" has its price. How much is the program?

And thanks for the love baby!

Lenny

[shortnstout]

:Drogar-Happy(DBG):
definitely has its price, but you can see if you like it with a demo version for free (has a stupid watermark over image): http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/demos.html
takes some time working with it to get it to work nicely. again, i never ever use the presets, just make slight changes, but usually to everything right before output (shouldn't use it if going to film out).

[Ted Arabian]

Forgot to mention that there will be a difference in the footage's look. Not just the selective focus, but it'll look different so you'd have to figure out how to match it to the naked cam.

That's what I'm attempting to do, myself. I haven't found a solution to make the naked HVX footage match the look of the adapter footage just yet. Aram suggested a 1pixel blur, I'll have to expirement.


1 pixel may be too much. but shoot like cinegamma D when shooting naked and Bpress when shooting adapter. that may matchthem up a bit.


on FCP expiriment between point 1 and point 25

This is a great thread. Timur, great post on page 1.

I am curious about this talk of 1 pixel blur and Jack's comment about "point 1 and point 25." I use FCP and I don't know what this means.

[tmnt]

Think they're just talking about using a blur effect on the naked footage to take the edge off it to better match the softer adaptor footy. I think when Jack said point 25 he meant '.25', as in a quarter pixel blur.

[Ted Arabian]

Ah! Gotcha. "point" as in a decimal point!

Thanks

[musicprogirl]

Thank you Timur for a Great post. I just downloaded your work reel and I'm blown away. Your techniques definitely work. Everything looks like film. You're incredible.
Thank you for sharing knowledge

[TimurCivan]

Thank you Timur for a Great post. I just downloaded your work reel and I'm blown away. Your techniques definitely work. Everything looks like film. You're incredible.
Thank you for sharing knowledge

thanks!
That stuff is over a year and a half old... new reel soon! im so excited.....

[Evans]

That post on page one was really informative, thanks Timur!

[DIYjunky]

Great Post,

a good additional lesson for those - who think "the best equipment" do the magic.....nope :-)

Thanks

[TimurCivan]

well to be fair the best equipment helps... but what it really proves is that filmmaking is a team effort. between the art director, dop, director, producers, actors, makeup etc....

[NARNAnN]

I echo comments re your initial post(great looking reel Timur).Film designer- the least understood role in movie making.He/she does not necessarily design sets/costumes, but is one of the three initial craftsman before a film begins shoot.He in conjunction with the cinematographer and director establishes the"look"and moreso how to obtain it ie lighting/camera movement texture etc.I laud all the creative efforts on these threads,but often wonder what a designer could have brought to the end product.
P.S. I have been a " student" of film design for over forty years.(yes, read old fart.)

[bwwd]

What about exposure ? Dont overexpose your footage should be rule no.1
This is obvious and clearly visible on any big film where whites are not blown out anywhere.

[PaPa]

bwwd, not sure about your comment. i have seen plenty of films with blown out whites. it all depends on what your going for.

[bwwd]

But i talking about real film look ,like back to the future or jurassic park, you know,films.You wont find blown out whites in them.

[Huy Vu]

But i talking about real film look ,like back to the future or jurrasic park, you know,films.You wont find blown out whites in them.

I can name plenty. Jarhead and Domino come to mind. Plenty of blownout whites. It depends on the style.

[bwwd]

but i talking about 80s 90s ,where they didnt had cpus to have fun with contrast and brightness for stylistic purpose.
Its like giving advice about film look and talking about blair witch project and how stylistic it is because of the look.
I just checked domino and it looks quite ugly for a film.Jarhead sometimes looks like if it was shot on minidv camcorder , its not the film look that i would want to have.

[Huy Vu]

I just checked domino and it looks quite ugly for a film.Jarhead sometimes looks like if it was shot on minidv camcorder , its not the film look that i would want to have.

You don't want to have. But that's exactly the point: there's no such thing as "the movie look." It's not a neat mold that you fit in. If that were true cinematographers wouldn't be artists, they'll just be copycat, replicating the same look over and over. The DPs on those films are all professionals with decades of experience and they choose those looks, would you say that they don't know what they're doing? That's the cool thing about cinematography: there's so many elements going into it that you can completely throw out the rules (i.e have blown out highlight) and still have a good looking film.

And I hardly thing Blair Witch is a fair comparison. That movie looked like that because the filmmakers couldn't afford to shoot any other way. But when you know how to create the look you want and you go for it even when it's unconventional, that's called style.

[bwwd]

But those extreme looks with blown out whites didnt existed in films from 80s and early 90s ,i know whats your point.

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

but i talking about 80s 90s ,where they didnt had cpus to have fun with contrast and brightness for stylistic purpose.
Its like giving advice about film look and talking about blair witch project and how stylistic it is because of the look.
I just checked domino and it looks quite ugly for a film.Jarhead sometimes looks like if it was shot on minidv camcorder , its not the film look that i would want to have.
Domino is done in camera and in the film lab using Techniques that he and his brother Ridley developed doing commercials in England in the 70's. I thought the same as you that it was a computer graded movie, but it's not.

John Hudson posted an article for me about the color process in Domino when I said the same thing a couple of years ago. Looked all over, can't find it, will ask him.


You don't want to have. But that's exactly the point: there's no such thing as "the movie look." It's not a neat mold that you fit in. If that were true cinematographers wouldn't be artists, they'll just be copycat, replicating the same look over and over. The DPs on those films are all professionals with decades of experience and they choose those looks, would you say that they don't know what they're doing? That's the cool thing about cinematography: there's so many elements going into it that you can completely throw out the rules (i.e have blown out highlight) and still have a good looking film.

And I hardly thing Blair Witch is a fair comparison. That movie looked like that because the filmmakers couldn't afford to shoot any other way. But when you know how to create the look you want and you go for it even when it's unconventional, that's called style.

Most of the Domino look is in the color, blow out highlights and high contrast has been around in film.


But those extreme looks with blown out whites didnt existed in films from 80s and early 90s ,i know whats your point.

http://www.aolcdn.com/channels/01/01/4474d023-00027-06333-400cb8e1

http://images.allmoviephoto.com/1971_The_French_Connection/gene_hackman_the_french_connection_001.jpg

http://images.allmoviephoto.com/1971_The_French_Connection/roy_scheider_gene_hackman_the_french_connection_00 1.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-nmpEaAYNWA/Sagbz75ogqI/AAAAAAAABVs/VzcVU7UiLG8/s400/Shot+in+the+Back.jpg

http://chicago.metromix.com/content_image/full/465166/560/370

http://www.gunbloggerconspiracy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/clint-eastwood-dirty-harry.jpg
(exposure on hand / gun)

[PaPa]

The difference between film blowouts and DV blowouts are the transition from information to pure white. Digital tends to clip harder where as film has a softer gredation to white. You can still achieve this with a little post correction, but im sorry, i have seen thousands of films where whites are blown out, and yes, even older films... Watch superman.

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Exactly, especially:

... Digital tends to clip harder where as film has a softer gredation to white. ....
I would say the one caveat to that is that with cameras like the Red with increased latitude you can get that smoother transition from the blowout. And it's not just a prob with most DV and HD from blowout to the next level, but cameras like the HVX have limited stops of latitude 6 -8 or something, so it can look harsh and video-ish even if it's not technically over exposed if you push the latutide to far.

Really it should be just about producing a pleasing image, or an image with an aesthetic that seems appropriate and doesn't push you out of the viewing experience. There was a reason no one really wanted to try and shoot features on video cameras in the 60i 80's or 90's. Yuck. And there's a reason peoplea are willing or even eager to now - because the cams are good enough to make an image, that if you have content, lighting, composition, art direction, etc. the camera won't be the thing that's keeping it all from not working or seeming ppolished.

So I kind of advocate not trying to look like film per se but realizing that some qualities are just more pleasing to us - like 24p motion. Video can do "better" motion if it wants to, but culturally we've gotten used to the slightly distilled look of 24p. And on that front, video is now films equal, able to produce a true 24 samples per second.

As for the latitude, it can be a problem, but I would think of it as just trying to avoid harsh, unnatural to the eye, transitions from blowout or highlight to the next value. So light and expose as best you can and when you have to blow something out you can soften that in camera with promist filters or in post.

[Huy Vu]

It is also possible to fake latitude when the blown out area is out of focus. Thiscause the edge to become more gentle instead of harsh like video. This is where a 35mm adapter comes in handy. In the still below, the sky is blown out for the most part, but since the edge is out of focus it's much more pleasant to look at and doesn't draw attention to itself.

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll4/huyqvu_2008/MusicVid/7.jpg

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

I agree. Also, 35mm adapters increase the cam's latitude. So you have two helpers there, the increased latitude, coupled with the out of focus-ness helping the edges to roll off nicely.

I also agree that that's a video image that's blown out in a not unpleasant way.

For my personal taste, I'd at a super subtle vignette in post since the edges are so bright - to focus us back in on the center and bring the image down a couple of stops, but the blow out is not unpleasant. My point being there's enough to work with there and could go further too. Though I feel I've lost a bit too much contrast in my version.
http://frenchquarterfeatures.com/gradedhuy2.jpg

[bwwd]

But this 35mm adapter shot doesnt look like its from 80s or 90s film,doesnt look filmic really,it looks like video camcorder and 35mm adapter.
Some of those photographs are just photo stills not actual film frames.
I know that when you have huge white sky in background then its blown out white and quite visible character or blue sky and very dark character.
Ah.. superman looks sometimes like amateur 16mm film picture quality/colour wise.
Anyway what i wanted to say is , dont leave exposure on auto cause not all exposure algorithms on camcorders are equal and some might blow whites more easily than other camcorders,and i personally would like to keep as much detail as possible instead of white holes from light.

[TimurCivan]

BWWD

Even film clips to white. The reason its less noticiceable in "film" is that if you have the money to shoot on 35, you have the money for a 18K as a fill light so you can stop down and keep the skies within exposre, while keeping actors faces exposed correctly.

Its not the medium its the technique.

I can make a DV camera like a DVX appear to have 12 stops of dynamic range with enough lights and time. if you watch your contrast ratios, and make sure everyhtign falls within the 6 stops of latitude, you will have a perfect exposure, and nothign will blow out.

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

I don't think anyone here would advocate leaving the exposure on auto. That's for home videos, docs maybe. Not narrative filmmaking.

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

bwwd et al, new nicely lit / exposed HVX film Witt's Daughter in the user films section
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=167849

[bwwd]

Thanks for more technical info ,i would like to read a lot more about this.
Ive seen the trailer Jack ,it looks nice sometimes but looks like they mixed adapter and non adapter footage which is impossible to match,different lens perspective and different sharpness ,its really hard task,maybe it would be possible to match on zooming but not like that on full FOV.

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

No you use the opposite strategy. You can get away with shooting without an adapter for wide shots est. shots etc. because when you use a wide lens it's supposed to be deep focus anyway.

Instead of trying to match long focal lengths where the DOF would be shallower but not as shallow as your adpater with differen bokeh and everything, you can use the bare lens at wide and adapter stuff for longer lens. Since wide angles have deeper focus anyway and because of the more extreme difference between the two angles of view, they cut better.

In a trailer, scene to scene it shouldn't matter.

Films mix deep focus and shallow depth of field all the time. As long as you do it for a reason and in a way that makes sense you can and should do it when it's the right choice.

ODD Squad on my site meshes deep focus, Anamoprhic adpater (highest res possible for DVX), deep focus wide angle lens (no adpater), stock lens, and 35mm adapter.
http://frenchquarterfeatures.com/french__quarter_features_in_exile.html
(Scroll down)

[bwwd]

I dont think you can match full zoomed out footage with adapter on infinity,it might depend on whats the lens in camcorder but so far i didnt saw good results.When you zoom on my camcorder you can get quite nice DOF for close ups (but not maximum zoom - about half zoom)and this might be matched with adapter DOF but i didnt tested it yet .On full zoom out my lens has quite wide FOV and picture is deformed when you move close to subject,but when you zoom in it becomes telephoto and flattens the image +gives you some DOF.
I downloading ODD squad to see it.
--
Ive seen i ,colours are matched ,ive seen some too white whites from light ,but i still like adapter shots much more,i understand that sometimes you cant shoot with adapter to catch in frame what you want but i wouldnt risk and mix adapter and non adapter shots.Colours can be matched ,but there is still something what is different ,maybe picture clarity,im not sure.

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

I dont think you can match full zoomed out footage with adapter on infinity,....
That's what I'm saying. Don't do that. It's possible to use your clean camera for establishing shots and your adapter for mediums and close shots. I'm saying DON'T try to match angle of views. Nor am I saying try to use your adapter with the lens opened up so you have infiniit focus. I'm saying have infinit or near infinit focus on your wide with your bare lens and then have shallower DOF with normal and long lenses. You don't try to cut to something the same - because no infinit bare lens and infinit adapter won't match. I'm saying cut a more infinit focus at a wider angle of view with a shallower depth of field on a longer angle of view. Cutting very different to fairly different angle of views together is what you should always be doing whether you are using an adapter or not. Cutting very similar angle of views doesn't work.

Zoom all the way out, or pretty far out with the bare lens, you can use that for establishing shots, long shots, etc. Then you can use your adapter, presumably with 50mm lenses on up for closeups etc. You don't need to have your adapter set to infinity. You will see all the time in scenes where the establishing or wide shot is infinite or near infinite focus. A medium shot is more shallow DOF and then closeups are more shallow than the mediums. That's because that's the way wide, normal, and long lenses work.

You can see it here on this HVX short too. This blends stock lens, 35mm adapter, and a wide angle for a DVX taped on to the front of the HVX, lol (hey it was horror, and we were going for an extreme look)
http://frenchquarterfeatures.com/private_screening_R_SD.html
warning: above link would be rated "R" for graphic violence and brief nudity

[TimurCivan]

hah.. i forgot how much fun oddd squad is.... love that movie....

[Steffo]

great post

[bwwd]

This should give some info why you shouldnt overexpose:
http://www.dancoplan.com/articles/exposing_video.html

Also on panavision video guy talks about colour reproduction by panavision genesis cameras and regular cameras , panavision simply dont catch so many highlights and colour curves arentt peaks like in video but like small mountains ,more information is in dark areas and whites are simply ignored.
Comparision of curves from panavision and video camera:
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/4351/clipboard2.png

There you can see how much higher video cam catches lightest/highest parts of colours ,well this is not that scientific knowledge cause this is very visible on panavision films when you compare it to your video camera,when i said that you shouldnt overexpose to avoid videoish look then i was right.
Panavision is a video cam too but they obviously had knowledge about look of the footage from their panavision cameras which shoot on film ,they matched sensor colour capture with their film cameras and here it is,a proof that you should not overexpose to get the film look similar to panavision films.

[bwwd]

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/july03/sub/page2.html

Another useful information from making of 28 days later,they wrote about white burned out sky and how they trying to avoid it ,they tried to underexpose.This also confirms that you should underexpose to get filmlike footage.

[TimurCivan]

you should expose properly.


Use filters and clever composition to get the best out of the image. Film will over expose as well...

[Mattykins]

And panavision produces half-million dollar camera bodies. Well, projected. The F35 (which is the Genesis - almost) sells for 1/4 million. About 1/2 mil to get up and running. And you are comparing that "video" camera to an HVX?

That is comparing a digital cinema system with a prosumer camera. Apples to potatoes there man.

[bwwd]

You didnt get the point of comparision ,sorry.
Its about the difference how panavision cam and video cam perceive light and dark tones, so you should underexpose to get image more similar to panavision tones.

Apples and oranges comparision is really really not appropriate to this ,cause theyre both cameras and its about color filters in them... and those are just small parts of the camera,theyre in all electronic cameras.
Anyway i shouldnt explain that ,i thought its simple to figure out.

[Huy Vu]

Underexposed footage cannot be corrected in post anymore than overexposed footage.

The Panavision camera has a much higher dynamic range than your average consumer cam, so it's bad advice to try and match the "tone" by underexposing. By the time you get to that point you'll have lost a great deal of image information in the midtones and the shadow that cannot be recovered.

The best advice is like Timur already stated: expose properly. Try your best so that the image is not blown out, but you'll usually have to compromise or bring in additional lights or bounce.

[bwwd]

This pic from vid actually shows panavision range and it dont let to overexpose that fast cause high tones are ignored.But i guess if this wont convince then nothing will and its pointless to bring here some info.I didnt saw any mention of exposure in this thread ,this was weird.Its important part of creating your image.

[MarkInAZ]

One strategy for the "film look" that I tried with better-than-expected results was shooting in front of a green screen, then keying in background footage. It's not a slam dunk, but it works better than you might think!

The background on this shot was keyed. The background footage was blurred to make the DOF effect--with more blur in the center due to the perspective to further sell the DOF.
movie: http://www.vimeo.com/2291248 (http://www.vimeo.com/2291248)
screenshot:
http://images.vimeo.com/19/37/44/193744141/193744141_200.jpg
Pros:
You can shoot the background anywhere, then the talent can rehearse and take their time on the virtual set instead of being on-location (e.g., at the supermarket)
Don't need a DOF adapter.
Cons:
You need to know how to key pretty well to sell the shot--there are plenty of tutorials out there for the major NLE's. Its not that hard.
You'll have to incorporate more rendering time when outputting
Your shot choices will be more limited, but that means you'll just have to be more creative.

If you don't have a DOF adapter and like the look, try it out. I was surprised!

[TimurCivan]

And panavision produces half-million dollar camera bodies. Well, projected. The F35 (which is the Genesis - almost) sells for 1/4 million. About 1/2 mil to get up and running. And you are comparing that "video" camera to an HVX?

That is comparing a digital cinema system with a prosumer camera. Apples to potatoes there man.

more like apples to battleships

[bwwd]

ive never seen apple or battleship with rgb filter.But i guess if someone dont care whats inside camera and how it works,its just waste of time to explain this.

[Mattykins]

ive never seen apple or battleship with rgb filter.But i guess if someone dont care whats inside camera and how it works,its just waste of time to explain this.

Nope, you are totally right. The internals of a DVX and a Panavision Genesis are totally the same. Viper, F35, Phantom, all in the same boat as an HV20. Absolutely the same.

[Huy Vu]

It's a conspiracy from those damn companies to make us pay more for the same thing. Educate yourself!

[bwwd]

If "only" sensor from panavision genesis would be in dvx,how this would change this camera ? And its only one small part.
I dont know if this is sarcastic or not but i do think that we got 24progressive definitely tooooo late , after all those years ,panasonic decided to give it to dvx for the first time.They made interlaced sensor cause its cheaper to get 2 fields ,its smoother than 25p or 24p but in reality who cares ,how many of us wanted to buy camera because weve seen FILMS and wanted to record something similar,not with more smoothness from interlaced sensor , with interlaced sensors all movements look ugly and not filmlike.
I believe that there is a plan to feed the public with small sensors and worse cameras first and then slowly give what should been given long time ago even with small sensors we should had progressive recording long time ago.
Now there is big break with DSLRs,HD cams,revolution is happening from a couple o years in digital video making but it could of been so much faster if not politics of companies who produce cameras.

[bwwd]

And about overexposing,take a look at this superman trailer,filmed with panavision anamorphic lenses ,its overexposed and it looks ugly for my eye ,doesnt look so solid and professional like properly exposed film ,at least thats how i see it ,i understand that this could be "style" but its "lets go fo amateurish look" style.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upfqG9stj-g&fmt=18

BUT anamorphic looks very very nice ,too bad its overexposed like that.
My point is - most adapter tests look like that ,they are overexposed,on auto settings or on manual but without adjusting exposure.

[TimurCivan]

well it was on film....

[alucard]

hey guys quick question.. ! i want to achieve as close as i can the movie like film video i posibly can under my budget as i would like to start with independent film making and such.(around $1500ish) i know is not much but if things go well then i can upgrade to something more spendy down the line.

im leaning towards canon hg21 since i dont want a camcorder that uses tapes and i can live with hard drive rather than flash memory to save my self some money. (if you know of a newer model or a different camcorder that would best work for me please let me know)

Ok.. here is were pandoras box opens in my face and i am overwhelmed with wtf to do next. i'm gonna take a break from reading reviews online and watching vimeo videos and here your input.

i dont know if i should buy Jag35 pro for about $400 or if i should buy letus 35 mini for $700+. or sgpro even dough i havent had luck finding were to buy it or even how much it costs yet.

i also would love not to tilt my camcorder upside down to record sinse im quite clompsy. (my psp looks like it just got chewed by a crocodile I've dropped it so much QQ)



thank you guys and keep up the good work!

[astrozombie]

screw film look, aim for good cinematography.

Maybe half of it is knowing that a color photo needs a color scheme.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xk59VKoCGI

[David G. Smith]

screw film look, aim for good cinematography.

Maybe half of it is knowing that a color photo needs a color scheme.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xk59VKoCGI

I don't know if I would say that video is an example of good cinematography, but I see your point. I think that, today, 21 months after the last post in this thread, we have moved past talking about, "...How to achieve a film look...". We are now able to craft high quality images and tell outstanding stories even with relatively inexpensive cameras. The catch is the word CRAFT!!

[TimurCivan]

screw film look, aim for good cinematography.

Maybe half of it is knowing that a color photo needs a color scheme.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xk59VKoCGI

Did you even read the thread? This video is incarnate, what this thread is about.

[astrozombie]

Did you even read the thread? This video is incarnate, what this thread is about.

Don't know what you mean.

Truthfully I'm not really a fan of the overall look of Julien Donkey Boy, but putting a blonde haired girl in a field of golden reeds sure looks purty, and its within the grasp of all of us no-budgeters.

Ive been reading photography books to help my cinematography, and the idea that a color photo needs restricted/intelligent use of color , was, to me, one of those little revelations. You started the thread talking about production design and its relation to cinematography, and a huge part of what an art director does is create a color scheme for the movie (or scene/sequence). The photos you included look great largely because of their harmonious color.

lots of golden brown here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKWn22u2sco&feature=fvst

Piper..... Boom. Pap. Boompap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qo1aoR96oI

[TimurCivan]

All of that is called production design.

[polfilmblog]

I am doing much the same thing. I'm using an hg20 to film a short this month. I created a rig to attach an anamorphic lens to the front. This does miracles in pushing it toward the film look. It will need cropping on the sides. The lens itself gives a look that everyone grew up on knowing was a widescreen film. This psychological factor and the frame ratio and the slight flattening of the image spatially really sell the effect.

Next, I'm just going to keep it within the cam's dynamic range with lighting/bounce, and not blow out the highlights. Digital blown highlights look like crap, no matter what anyone says. Not willing to negotiate on that point.

I'll use some color correction, but keep it from going too far and destroying the image. The cam is supposedly 24Mbps, so should have some leeway.

Finally I may add a grain pass or two to really sell the film look. I'm experimenting with larger grain patterns in the shadows and finer grains over the high end to better mimic the real thing.

BTW - Anyone want to trade a script read? It's a psychological crime thriller.

[ReneH]

wow great post Timur - I've never given that much thought to set dressing and such playing such a big role in the "film look". Definitely given me alot to think about... Thanks for taking the time to post all this!

It's called "Mise en scene, " which means the staging of poeple and objects are staged, framed and filmed. They are all considered visual materials. It is a French term by the way.