Making it look like film....

I hate to bring this up but this thread leads us further and further into the almost mandatory need to shoot with an adaptor. None of the stuff discussed here was shot without adaptor. Maybe it's time to just point out the unavoidable: adaptors are mandatory for getting the movie look.
 
HUY: Thanks for the additional photos. VERY helpful. Couple more questions though.

1) Isn't the Kino daylight balanced and the fresnels tungsten balanced? Wouldn't mixing those be a problem, or do you use them to give a "look"? (daylight from a window mixed with room lighting.......interesting)

2) What's the huge projector on the ceiling for? (or is that just the homeowners projector, not used for the shoot?)

Thanks again and great job! :)
 
MitchLewis said:
HUY: Thanks for the additional photos. VERY helpful. Couple more questions though.

1) Isn't the Kino daylight balanced and the fresnels tungsten balanced? Wouldn't mixing those be a problem, or do you use them to give a "look"? (daylight from a window mixed with room lighting.......interesting)
Click to expand...

That's actually a Cool Light fixture, which is a lower cost alternative to Kinos. But yes, it is daylight balanced. I don't like how tungsten affects skintone so I prefer to WB to daylight and have tungsten fixtures as backlight or sunlight.

MitchLewis said:
2) What's the huge projector on the ceiling for? (or is that just the homeowners projector, not used for the shoot?)
Click to expand...

Yea, that was just there, we didn't use it for anything. This was my friend's place and it was already filled with all this stuff, we just move the furniture around, didn't have to do much additional production design.
 
OK... Not trying to piss anyone off here...... Are we getting a little adapter crazy here? Reminds me of Fog filter, Star filter, haze filter...... The magic band aid. I understand what the adapter does, But I'm not convinced it's the thing that makes it film like.

What about things like framing, lighting, staging, writing, acting, directing.....

OK.... Hypothetical question.....Your making a film.... You have a choice to make..... Super XYZ lens adapter or an A list actor. Which one is gonna make it more film like?

Don't get me wrong.... I'm not an adapter basher. I just think allot of people are placing to much on the adapters.

frisco
 
What about things like framing, lighting, staging, writing, acting, directing.....

TV shows use lighting, staging etc... but that's not the point. I see a lot of "films" made with low budgets but when you see that infinite DOF you know it's video. Any way you look at it, the adaptor not only lowers DOF but also gives you an organic look due to the rotating or vibrating textured glass.

So Huy Vu is a bit hypocritical when he says he could have done it without adaptor and yet uses the adaptor for everyone of his films. I believe he would not have had the organic look without the adaptor.
 
jujufactory said:
I see a lot of "films" made with low budgets but when you see that infinite DOF you know it's video. Any way you look at it, the adaptor not only lowers DOF but also gives you an organic look due to the rotating or vibrating textured glass.

So Huy Vu is a bit hypocritical when he says he could have done it without adaptor and yet uses the adaptor for everyone of his films. I believe he would not have had the organic look without the adaptor.
Click to expand...

If your viewer dosn't like your film because it has to much DOF...... You got way bigger problems.........

Are you one of those trying to hide bad film making behind an adapter?

frisco
 
jujufactory said:
TV shows use lighting, staging etc... but that's not the point. I see a lot of "films" made with low budgets but when you see that infinite DOF you know it's video. Any way you look at it, the adaptor not only lowers DOF but also gives you an organic look due to the rotating or vibrating textured glass.
Click to expand...

That's not at all true. The average viewer don't know what DOF is. I remember seeing Spike Lee's Bamboozled when I was starting out. I knew that movies that are shot on film have short DOF, but Bamboozled looked exactly like a "real movie" to me. I was greatly surprised to find out later that the film was shot on cheap Sony VX1000(s) and it stills looks great. So if your movie has great lighting and set design as Bamboozled did, then nobody is going to be wondering why the background isn't out of focus.

jujufactory said:
So Huy Vu is a bit hypocritical when he says he could have done it without adaptor and yet uses the adaptor for everyone of his films. I believe he would not have had the organic look without the adaptor.
Click to expand...

I use adapter because it allows me to isolate the subject and provides a powerful narrative tool. I don't put the adapter on and expect the automatic filmlook. Nobody is denying that an adapter is useful, but I would disagree that you can't make your film looks good without it.
 
I think adapters are a useful tool but they are not the only thing that will give you a film look. As it has been mentioned already lighting, composition and movement is what makes a film look. Adapters with good glass on them can add to the look of the film with the depth of field or just color rendition but it is not the only way to get a rich look.
 
Adaptors are just part of a cinematographer's toolbox. You can get the same effect, but not as easily, by pulling a camera back and zooming in, then opening the iris as much as possible. Then again, hooking up adaptors and lenses isn't exactly a walk in the park, either...

Cameras with small sensors, like 1/3", always struggle with short focus, because the lenses have to be wider (easier to get deep focuse) than those with 2/3" sensors, where the lenses tend to be more telephoto-ish (easier to get short focus)

David
 
Huy Vu, How did you do the audio. Did you do ADR on outdoor scenes? It feels that way.

I must say I am quite impressed with your camera movements and shot selections. I've to saved the link to watch over and over to learn from it.
 
These are raw images captured from an EX3 without any dof adapter. No color correction.

I might crush the blacks gently, maybe use some kind of difusion and also play with the colors a little bit.

I think we should always try to add production value to the film, so it looks less amateur. Lighting, camera movements (if your story needs it).

Work on your color palette trough wardrobe, art direction, locations and again light.

25.jpg


26.jpg


Regards
 
Last edited:
JuJu,
The basic answer for why I sold my Letus Extreme:
I don't use it for any bread and butter work and found it limiting and unnecessary for what I am currently doing most. I try to keep myself in check about the tools that I own. If I don't use them enough I'd rather not have the baggage.

If I were to work on fiction with the hope of theatrical release I would perhaps invest in a Letus Ultimate and a set of Zeiss lenses, but I would not bank on that investment to deliver a great film.

I am very interested in the original question which asks about other ways to get a filmic look. . . software for softening and adding filmlike grain for example.

I completely agree that lighting, framing, camera movement, sound, etc. are all equally or more important than DOF.

The "film look" is also everchanging (B & W Technicolor 16mm 35mm Red Genesis) but the fundamentals that have been mentioned tend to create a more filmic experience.

Taoist saying: Love the pitcher less and the water more
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top