PDA

View Full Version : How can I get a film look?



HeyAndy
09-14-2011, 08:26 AM
Aside from camera settings, lenses, and actors, how can I apply a film look to my videos and make them look cinematic in post-production? For example I'm a final cut person so what specific video filters do I need to use to achieve a film look?

Thanks.

txdp
09-14-2011, 08:46 AM
Sigh. Literally thousands of posts on this subject. Search is your friend. Here's a start: Pull some stills from scenes you like the look of in other movies, and play with the 3-way color corrector in Final cut to try and get the same look. Light it right and shoot it right, then good color correction will give you the "film look"

David G. Smith
09-14-2011, 09:23 AM
Sigh. Literally thousands of posts on this subject. Search is your friend. Here's a start: Pull some stills from scenes you like the look of in other movies, and play with the 3-way color corrector in Final cut to try and get the same look. Light it right and shoot it right, then good color correction will give you the "film look"

Yeah, there are a lot of posts on this. As a generality, when working with the 3 way color in FCP, with footage shot with a FS100, I like to decrease saturation a bit and warm up the mids. To me, this adds a little bit of look that I think helps to make my footage look more cinematic. I suggest that you go in there an play around as suggested.

bwwd
09-16-2011, 03:29 AM
you need to avoid flat lighting, shoot in 24fps, use proper lenses for situations, read sticky threads in cinematography section.

NVentive
09-16-2011, 05:28 AM
It also kinda depends on what you mean by 'the film look.' Best bet -- read a lot and then go for trial and error. Copy other people's technique, but don't stop trying to develop your own. Cheers --

bwwd
09-16-2011, 07:27 PM
But develop when you mastered proper techniques, dont make up your own if you dont know basics* stuff cause it often would look bad, you dont need to reinvent the wheel and make all the mistakes, just stick to the book.Imitate the masters and try to make your footage similar to movies that you like."Steal" some shots and framing from favourite movies.

drapeama
09-17-2011, 05:47 AM
Aside from camera settings, lenses, and actors, how can I apply a film look to my videos and make them look cinematic in post-production? For example I'm a final cut person so what specific video filters do I need to use to achieve a film look?
Everything has been said, but this (http://prolost.com/blog/2008/3/23/save-our-skins.html) could help you.
And also, before all that: a good lighting for the scene. Without it, even with a lot of color correction it won't save the situation.
Also, this (http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.com/2010/03/teal-and-orange-hollywood-please-stop.html) seems to be the new trend in color correction, if that's what you're after.

Adam J McKay
09-18-2011, 03:08 PM
Step one: Shoot on film
Done. :cheesy:

Really though, I have come to learn that digital is never really going to look like film, there is no easy button to make it look even similar, good acting, production design, cinematography, sound, yes even sound, go into making the elusive "film look". Having just finished shooting my first feature, I would suggest worrying more about telling an amazing story in an original and creative way and then you just might find, you get what you need. Que Guitar SOLO.

PopcornFlix
11-10-2011, 02:19 AM
What makes a "film look?" There are several ingredients:

CAMERA - do some things with your digital camera that are just like a film camera:
Pick a digital video camera with a sensor close to the size of 35mm movie film (m4/3 & APS-C are good.)*
Shoot 24p;
set your shutter to 1/48 seconds (180);
Use ND filters to reduce light so you can open the aperture wider, and decrease you depth of field;
Pick lenses that will give you some variety: wide, normal and long
Shoot "flat," that is, low contrast, with as much detail held in both darkest and brightest parts of the image. Color correct in post for maximum film look.
*(Full Frame cameras like the 5dMkII have sensors BIGGER than movie film, so they behave differently than a movie camera.)

LIGHTING - do some things with your lighting plan that are just like shooting a movie:
Copy the lighting style of a particular movie. Hollywood movies have individual "looks." The Godfather doesn't look like Transformers.
Separate your foreground from the background.
Avoid flat, shadowless light; shadows make things look dimensional
Use hairlights, catchlights and eyelights to make your shots look slicker;
Use cookies and gels to make blank walls look interesting
http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Godfather034-580x250.jpghttp://dev.null.org/scrapbook/2010/0319_teal1.jpg

STAGING - organize the composition of your frame in an interesting way, like a movie
Use the fundamentals of composition;
Move the actors from one pleasing arrangement to another;
Move the camera from one pleasing composition to another;


It's not everything, but it's a start. Good luck.

drapeama
11-10-2011, 02:49 AM
What makes a "film look?" There are several ingredients:
4) Use ND filters to reduce light so you can open the aperture wider, and decrease you depth of field;6)Shoot "flat," that is, low contrast, with as much detail held in both darkest and brightest parts of the image. Color correct in post for maximum film look.

LIGHTING - do some things with your lighting plan that are just like shooting a movie
It's not everything, but it's a start. Good luck.
1) Several aspects makes a "film-look". Every of these aspects alone won't make it the desired effect, but all combined they'll work.
2) ND filters are great for outdoor, especially if you'll be using a DSLR: the only other way to avoid blown out image is to increase the f/stops to something like f/22 outside. By doing that, you end up having a picture that's all in focus (no blurry backgrounds).
3) I would like to point something about shooting flat: because of the more limited use of the 8-bit space, there's less info to work with in post, which may result in banding. There's always a way to "remove/hide" that effect, which is being discussed here (http://www.hv20.com/showthread.php?44111-Technicolor-CineStyle-unnecessary&p=413743&viewfull=1#post413743).
4) Lighting, of course, is important. Without lighting, it would look rather videoish or budgetless. That being said, it can be used that way to create a certain mood or a certain "tone" to the movie. More info about lighting here (http://prolost.com/blog/2007/7/11/color-makes-the-movie.html). Interesting before&after comparison.
5) Of course, you must respect and know some basics, otherwise it simply won't make it.

David W. Jones
11-10-2011, 03:25 AM
Film look? What do you mean, the look of Gilligan's Island or The Brady Bunch?

PopcornFlix
11-10-2011, 03:36 PM
1) I would like to point something about shooting flat: because of the more limited use of the 8-bit space, there's less info to work with in post, which may result in banding. There's always a way to "remove/hide" that effect, which is being discussed here (http://www.hv20.com/showthread.php?44111-Technicolor-CineStyle-unnecessary&p=413743&viewfull=1#post413743).

For a newbie like to OP, I think this is a bit advanced.

I recommend shooting "flat" (low contrast) to capture as much detail in brights and darks as possible. That way, they can shape the look in post, and be able to make maximum changes because they have as much data as possible.

starcentral
11-14-2011, 11:55 AM
Andy,

For a film look you won't go far in post without good images to begin with, and that starts with good art direction (location location location) and lighting them and your subjects.

As you had mentioned the lenses, their focal length and the actors and how the film is directed in general all come together overall to make a real awesome looking film. I suggest you get a book called the visual story which goes deep into the subconcious aspects of creating visual images on film. Everything from tonal separation, color palettes and all that fun stuff that is boring to read but you must understand if you are truly after creating a film with a film look.

Hope this helps inspire you to look for more answers....... .

ZetKey
11-16-2011, 12:43 AM
OK, I have read all threads about the film look and I still confused about one thing. There goes my question: Look at TV series! Those are done by professionals, they know how to light, how to stage actors, how to decorate scene, where to put camera and so on. But it still looks like TV, not like film. So, where is the problem?
For example: Sarah Connor Chronicles vs. Terminator movies, Sex and the City series vs. Sex and the City movies.

David W. Jones
11-16-2011, 04:08 AM
Well generally a TV series has a much tighter budget than a feature movie, so many have gone from shooting film, to shooting video. The first season of sex in the city was shot on super 16mm in order to save money over shooting on 35mm film. Now with TV series budgets shrinking even further the majority are now shot on video. As far as them not looking like film, who cares? Most people watch a TV show or a movie to be entertained, not to scrutinize the grain structure or try and determine which camera was used. And there lies the problem with many productions. They are more worried about trying to emulate what they think is a film look, rather than concentrating on entertaining their viewers. Bottom line, the only people worried about a film look or lack there of, are people on a forum like this. For the majority of the people out there, either they were entertained by your product, or they were not.

All the Best!

Dave

ZetKey
11-16-2011, 04:36 AM
the only people worried about a film look or lack there of, are people on a forum like this. For the majority of the people out there, either they were entertained by your product, or they were not
I liked it! But as filmmaker I still try to make it look as best as possible. And less like homevideo, no matter how entertaining it looks when grandma blows the pie candles.

gonzo_entertainment
11-21-2011, 01:25 PM
1. Lighting
2. Lighting.
3. Lighting
4. 24 FPS
5. 1/50 or 1/48 shutter

starcentral
11-21-2011, 02:11 PM
OK, I have read all threads about the film look and I still confused about one thing. There goes my question: Look at TV series! Those are done by professionals, they know how to light, how to stage actors, how to decorate scene, where to put camera and so on. But it still looks like TV, not like film. So, where is the problem?
For example: Sarah Connor Chronicles vs. Terminator movies, Sex and the City series vs. Sex and the City movies.

The answer has to do with how TV shows are shot versus films, or more so the lighting differences. Most TV shows are sets fully lit so actors can move freely and several cameras shooting at once. With TV series you don't have time to take 3-9 months to produce a 1/2 or 1 hour episode. Shows are shot FAST. On films however scenes are shot from different angles EACH with different light setups which can take hours to setup, adjust, and move each time a scene is blocked/staged and shot. Anyone care to guess how many script pages are shot per day on a film vs a TV show?

Also some shows are still shot at 30p so it looks a little more fluid than that juddery 24p look when played on 60Hz TV systems due to telecine process. 60p on the other hand or even 60i is way too fluid, so 30p for TV is a happy middle ground. Yes more shows these days are shooting in 24p for more cinematic look but I wanted to mention 30p can yield a more "TV" look.

In the end aside from the obvious 24p and 1/48th (or 180 degree) shutter, its the lighting, location/art direction, shooting multiple angles, camera movement (cinematography) and again I'll mention the post-production process that contributes to an overall "film-look". Just to elaborate on that last point a little more, have a look at the SAME image from one of my favourite movies "28 Weeks Later":

43680

43681

So to you, which looks more "cinematic"? Which look will you find in the final version of the film? Why are there even two looks here to begin with?

:D

ZetKey
11-23-2011, 01:18 AM
starcentral, so... at first it seems that bigger budget gives you better and more locations, props, postproduction, acurate lighting for every setup. The result is more money = more film look? :)
Then, looking at the screenshots I think, that TV shows don't have film look because they are to lazy to grade colors? LOL

Lighting is the key. But many studio photos or fashion magazine covers don't look like frames from the films. My childhood is on the 8mm tape. You wont find composition or nice lighting there, because it is 100% "home video" on the old 8mm tape, but guest what, it has the "old-film look", flat colors and specific fluidity of movement.

If ideal composition, moody lighting, arranged wardrobe with backround, camera lens, shutter speed, emotion in the face of an actor could be done the same in video, film or photo. Will the result be the same or not?

starcentral
11-23-2011, 05:23 AM
Its not lazy, its time and money. Shows can't undergo the amount time invested in a major hollywood blockbuster.. Having said that I've been blown away by the look and feel of some shows such as "Lost" for example. I mean it really looked great and was cinematic to me. The sets were awesome, long lenses, natural setting (hawaii helps), and really good lighting. Can't say how much post it went through for a final look.

Fashion magazines might not look like a frame of film, but they still undergo a similar and detailed process: location, lighting, makeup, wardrobe, camera lens/angle, and post production (way more post particularly on skin).

As for your 8mm footage you should post some, and it could be good for the discussion and YES its still film-like but it certainly doesn't emulate a hollywood film or TV show as the poster of the thread was alluding to.

If composition, moody lighting, wardrobe, lens, shutter speed, emotion in face, etc was done in video, film or photo it would be very close to the same. I shoot video on Sony F3 and still photography on Canon 7D and will post some frames from each to see how they can look without really knowing what it might have been shot with.

starcentral
11-23-2011, 10:51 AM
As discussed in the previous post below are two images: One created with a video camera (Sony F3) and the other created with a still camera (Canon 7D). Both created with emphasis on location, lens/angle, lighting, wardrobe, makeup, expression, and post production efforts. Even without motion, are both "cinematic", does one look like TV show vs. film., and can you really tell which was created with what?

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6216/6381289005_13c0202495_z.jpg (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dennis-Hingsberg/202877143123204)

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6033/6320327670_625fcd6730_z.jpg (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dennis-Hingsberg/202877143123204)

:D

ZetKey
11-25-2011, 06:02 AM
My 8mm footage is not digitized (how that process is called?).
Looking at your example I got idea that we may have different taste in the film look styles. The pair (second screenshot) for me looks like film look, and the girl (above) is more like fashion magasin cover and not a frame-from-movie.
About the film look styles. I like shallow focus and flat colors. Look at this, http://www.paranoias.org/2011/10/asit-photography/ ,for me it is pure film-look and I believe most of it was done with natural lights.

This was done messing with colors ir post.
http://kinomanai.lt/ff/download/file.php?id=851&mode=view
http://kinomanai.lt/ff/download/file.php?id=849&mode=view
http://kinomanai.lt/ff/download/file.php?id=848&mode=view

Can I rephrase the question into "How can I get a film look (or get close enought) - without budget, without fancy locations and big lighting sets and filming only with consumer DSLR?"

gonzo_entertainment
11-25-2011, 07:08 AM
As for the still photos, a lot of that MAY have been natural light (it also may have been strobes involved), but a still photographer can wait for the exact time of day when the lighting is exactly what he wants. On anything other than a gazillion dollar Hollywood film you can't do that. We have 4 pages to shoot today, we're not sitting here for 2 hours waiting for the DP to say 'OK the light is perfect, now we only have 15 minutes to shoot the scene". It's two totally different worlds. For the most part we have to make out own light.

Back to your question, you do all the things settings wise talked about here and all over the forum (right frame rate, right shutter speed, right color profile, etc...) then you practice, a lot. You learn how to use light (natural or created), frame, use camera movement, etc...

It will NEVER be true that you can just point the magic box at something with the right settings and beautiful footage will come out. It'applying skill and knowledge to each shot to get the most out of it.

starcentral
11-25-2011, 11:13 AM
Nope. Lighting was used in both photos I posted, only in one to look more natural instead of "lit". And the top image adjusted in post to make background appear darker as if the subject was strobed with light, the original image actually looked pretty flat with some light on the talents face to lift the skin a little.

I don't believe you will get a "good" film-look with out some level of budget or use of equipment, locations, etc... but on the other hand you can be creative and use existing light to your advantage and whatever else you can gain access to for your project. The best way to learn getting a "film-look" is by just doing it and seeing for yourself the results and what you liked about it or did not.

With your DSLR stick with a shutter speed around 1/48 and record 24p as others have mentioned and it will go a long way. Start making films and analyse them later for what is missing or lacking. Work with others to expand your own skill set and trade skills with others. Many of us have spent years and years if not decades learning this craft - as there is s much to learn indeed!

Start now!

ZetKey
12-04-2011, 12:44 PM
Another one link
http://www.cinemaadvanced.com/cinematography/do-you-want-your-video-to-look-like-film

starcentral
12-04-2011, 02:35 PM
Good link.

Kholi
12-04-2011, 05:20 PM
Take this or leave it:

When you have nothing else at your disposal, you will always have the ability to compose a shot that conveys a certain message.

Always.

No matter what camera you are using, no matter what lens, as long as you are exposed you can create a "cinematic look" by composing a shot properly. A well lit shot with poor composition is still a poor shot.

If you learn how to compose even with dry white walls, you will see the "cinematic look" that you're searching for.

TV looks like TV because it's composed specifically for the format and the conversion to broadcast standard. Although alot of television is moving away from such. Even still, there's a beauty there.

Mad Men is the best looking television show I have ever seen in my life, and as well lit as it is, the compositions are mind blowing.

Kholi
12-04-2011, 05:25 PM
As discussed in the previous post below are two images: One created with a video camera (Sony F3) and the other created with a still camera (Canon 7D). Both created with emphasis on location, lens/angle, lighting, wardrobe, makeup, expression, and post production efforts. Even without motion, are both "cinematic", does one look like TV show vs. film., and can you really tell which was created with what?

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6216/6381289005_13c0202495_z.jpg (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dennis-Hingsberg/202877143123204)

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6033/6320327670_625fcd6730_z.jpg (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dennis-Hingsberg/202877143123204)

:D

I agree with what the other poster said. THe first is not cinematic.

The second is.

My brain tells me that in the first, the shooter wasn't going for cinematic. Main reason why? It's 50/50: there wasn't a clear decision on what was to be shown here, and because of that the crop is right at the hip and creates the image of too much headroom. That's not cinematic. But could easily be re-framed and have a different impact.

kennedymax
02-21-2012, 12:09 PM
Interestingly enough, most high-end films that are shot today for theatrical digital projection or eventual tv release are shot at 30fps. The more knowledgeable producers don't want the 24/30 fps conversion "hickup" that is so sought and treasured by the noobee as affirmation of the "film look".

Sad Max
02-25-2012, 06:48 PM
Can you steer us to some titles that were shot at 30 fps?

Kholi
02-25-2012, 07:42 PM
Interestingly enough, most high-end films that are shot today for theatrical digital projection or eventual tv release are shot at 30fps. The more knowledgeable producers don't want the 24/30 fps conversion "hickup" that is so sought and treasured by the noobee as affirmation of the "film look".

I'd LOVE to see the data to back up this claim.

Sad Max
02-25-2012, 07:51 PM
I'll admit to thinking the same. Thirty features, and not one shot 30fps. Though of course my thirty, is not the next person's thirty.