I think stating that "film look" has anything to do with story or characterization or dialogue etc. is kind of silly. Everybody needs to admit that the term "film look" arose from trying to achieve the look of something shot on film on an electronic medium like video. "Film look" is what something shot on film has. 24 frames progressive is what got us very close to the "film look". Film stock exposed at 60f/s and projected at 60f/s looks a lot like video. Turns out the frame rate makes a lot of difference. A movie shot on film that happens to have a bad plot, terrible acting etc. still has a "film look".
Does a film look really exist?
- Thread starter randomname
- Start date
Gabel
Well-known member
This thread is about filmlook. Things like good storytelling and acting makes a good film, but what makes a film look good? Well, a lot of people shooting DSLRs thinks this is short DOF with a 5D, but really, that's not it. So many people focus only on the camera, but there is a lot more. Most of it has to do what you do BEFORE you shoot it in the camera. The steps I would say are:
1. Production design. This is very underrated, but by this I mean costumes and set design. A lot of low-budget filmmaking is done on location. But so many just have actors showing up with their clothes, without make-up and with no set-designer on a place you've never been too. This is NOT a good way to work. Instead, you want to have an idea of the location (photos works fine), agreeing on a look of costumes and sets. Those things really takes it up a notch, giving a more interesting picture and more life to it. A common low-budget problem is to have either overcrowded or too empty sets. Get a set-designer in there and do some work! You will love it once you've seen the results.
2. Blocking and rehearsing. This is another thing so many people forget about. By blocking scenes with the director, you see where actors will be in each shot, how to work the set and to get all the camera movements done. But it also means you don't shoot unnecessary shots. So many people shoot things "for editing". But with blocking it, you plan out all the shots, only shooting the ones you need and giving them the proper focus they deserve (instead of just thinking about how to get to the next one the quickest) and getting an idea for how they will each work with each-other. Whenever I block I have less setups than without blocking, but each of them matter. Rehearsing is also important. That way you're focus puller gets his marks set, you notice how on-actors are for their mark and notice if there needs to be any last changes. DO NOT SLATE A REHEARSAL, or people will treat it as a take, then not being prepared to break it off (it is ok to roll during it, but do not slate it). Rehearsing takes more time, sure, but means you need to take fewer takes, making everything easier. The reason I think it adds to the film-look is more that the proper focus is given to each setup.
3. Lighting. Now this is where you really make the picture come alive. It is not adding a LED panel on top of your camera, or a single light that you throw around between takes. The best way to light is to light the set. First is just the mood for the scene, is it bright day, or perhaps a dark, dingy, night look? This should be the influence not only to you, but to your set designer. After all, you want to bring forward the set they've made? When it comes to the actors, you want to light them with the set. Notice where their positions are and take that into account when lighting the set, adjusting so that the light falls nice on the actor. Lighting the set takes more time initially, but has more or less no time between takes, as you really light up the whole room, just moving around the camera. This makes it nicer for everybody in the crew, especially the talent!
4. Camera. This is really the last part. A camera does matter: Shooting with a video camera makes the whole thing look very flat. But to get some depth doesn't mean you need a 5D at f/1.4! An M4/3 sensor and Super-35 are the ones that provides you with nice filmic depth, but with a nice depth-of-field (you dont want it to be too shallow after all). But most importantly is that after having blocked the scenes and lit them, is how to use the camera. Lens selection makes a big difference. You can shoot a close-up with a wide-angle, sure, but it won't work if you want something to look nice and normal, but if you want a distorted look, it would be perfect. Know how each lens differs in the look and work with that. Next is movement. Just because you can doesn't mean you should, but movement helps. For example, the difference between moving and cutting says different things. If you want to show a large skyscraper and then your protagonist walking into it, consider having the camera tilted up and then tilt down to reveal him walking into the building.
And last but not least:
These are tools. All your equipment is your tools to tell the story that is there to be told. Use as them as much as you can (not in numbers, but in capacity, by that I mean to put them at their best use). Learn the limits of everything you use and get it as close to that limit! But if that limit is too low, it will stop being a tool and become a limitation. Then it needs to be changed, as any piece of equipment that is limited limits you! Never let that happen. This was the reason I sold my 7D: The moire and aliasing started to limit me too much. But as soon as you can work with it as a tool, you need to work with what's more important: You and your craft. That is what matters, in the end.
1. Production design. This is very underrated, but by this I mean costumes and set design. A lot of low-budget filmmaking is done on location. But so many just have actors showing up with their clothes, without make-up and with no set-designer on a place you've never been too. This is NOT a good way to work. Instead, you want to have an idea of the location (photos works fine), agreeing on a look of costumes and sets. Those things really takes it up a notch, giving a more interesting picture and more life to it. A common low-budget problem is to have either overcrowded or too empty sets. Get a set-designer in there and do some work! You will love it once you've seen the results.
2. Blocking and rehearsing. This is another thing so many people forget about. By blocking scenes with the director, you see where actors will be in each shot, how to work the set and to get all the camera movements done. But it also means you don't shoot unnecessary shots. So many people shoot things "for editing". But with blocking it, you plan out all the shots, only shooting the ones you need and giving them the proper focus they deserve (instead of just thinking about how to get to the next one the quickest) and getting an idea for how they will each work with each-other. Whenever I block I have less setups than without blocking, but each of them matter. Rehearsing is also important. That way you're focus puller gets his marks set, you notice how on-actors are for their mark and notice if there needs to be any last changes. DO NOT SLATE A REHEARSAL, or people will treat it as a take, then not being prepared to break it off (it is ok to roll during it, but do not slate it). Rehearsing takes more time, sure, but means you need to take fewer takes, making everything easier. The reason I think it adds to the film-look is more that the proper focus is given to each setup.
3. Lighting. Now this is where you really make the picture come alive. It is not adding a LED panel on top of your camera, or a single light that you throw around between takes. The best way to light is to light the set. First is just the mood for the scene, is it bright day, or perhaps a dark, dingy, night look? This should be the influence not only to you, but to your set designer. After all, you want to bring forward the set they've made? When it comes to the actors, you want to light them with the set. Notice where their positions are and take that into account when lighting the set, adjusting so that the light falls nice on the actor. Lighting the set takes more time initially, but has more or less no time between takes, as you really light up the whole room, just moving around the camera. This makes it nicer for everybody in the crew, especially the talent!
4. Camera. This is really the last part. A camera does matter: Shooting with a video camera makes the whole thing look very flat. But to get some depth doesn't mean you need a 5D at f/1.4! An M4/3 sensor and Super-35 are the ones that provides you with nice filmic depth, but with a nice depth-of-field (you dont want it to be too shallow after all). But most importantly is that after having blocked the scenes and lit them, is how to use the camera. Lens selection makes a big difference. You can shoot a close-up with a wide-angle, sure, but it won't work if you want something to look nice and normal, but if you want a distorted look, it would be perfect. Know how each lens differs in the look and work with that. Next is movement. Just because you can doesn't mean you should, but movement helps. For example, the difference between moving and cutting says different things. If you want to show a large skyscraper and then your protagonist walking into it, consider having the camera tilted up and then tilt down to reveal him walking into the building.
And last but not least:
These are tools. All your equipment is your tools to tell the story that is there to be told. Use as them as much as you can (not in numbers, but in capacity, by that I mean to put them at their best use). Learn the limits of everything you use and get it as close to that limit! But if that limit is too low, it will stop being a tool and become a limitation. Then it needs to be changed, as any piece of equipment that is limited limits you! Never let that happen. This was the reason I sold my 7D: The moire and aliasing started to limit me too much. But as soon as you can work with it as a tool, you need to work with what's more important: You and your craft. That is what matters, in the end.
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
+1 on set design and blocking. Way underrated and overlooked.
Frank
Frank
I agree with last two, film look seems to be more in front of the lens choice for me as I keep shooting. The set these days would be more important. Last year I would've rathered the option of controllable lights in an ok-ish set that I had for a few days, this year I'd much rather rehearse my brains off, and go to that one awesome spot that looks like an entire world all by itself and wait for two hours of sunlight every day till I get it.
It's a tough question to answer. I think scientifically it's film look = shot on film at 24 fps. Other than that I would cast my vote for in front of the lens. The set, the costumes, the stuff you see. It has to 'match'. Like it was an outfit, put together.
I see that I wrote a bunch on the first page, let me see if I've changed at all.
Cheers all.
It's a tough question to answer. I think scientifically it's film look = shot on film at 24 fps. Other than that I would cast my vote for in front of the lens. The set, the costumes, the stuff you see. It has to 'match'. Like it was an outfit, put together.
I see that I wrote a bunch on the first page, let me see if I've changed at all.
Cheers all.
Gabel
Well-known member
Exactly! You will really see the difference between having done and not having done it, it's huge!
randomname
Well-known member
The point of the thread wasn't that good acting and dialoge are what make something look like a film, but what make something feel like a film and a lot of people seem to get the two confused. My point was that a lot of people will make bad movies and then complain that the problem was that it "didn't look like film" but I would argue that a film doesn't actually look like anything. Movies like Bubble or Baghead don't have any kind of "film look" but at no point does it "not look like a film" if that makes sense.
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
I think it should be pretty plain that generally people mean "Does it look like it was shot on 35mm film" which is the look 99.999999% of people associate with high production values and "quality". Some of that is frame rate, some of that is shutter speed, some of that is control of DOF, and some of that is the fact that if you had the money to shoot on film (pre-digital age) you probably had the money to hire somebody who knew how to light a scene.
Azmyth
Veteran
film look
film look
I'm in the camp of "film look" = erroneous term created to describe indie film makers attempt to make their shot on video productions look like the stuff hollywood is doing with multi million dollar budgets.
I prefer to call it "cinematic", or the big budget movie look. There are exceptions to this rule, but we automatically know its a hollywood movie simply from its aesthetic.
They don't have to be shot on film to have it either. I've seen several RED features that to me had that same aesthetic, but they were all still fairly large budget films.
I can immediately tell the difference.
I actually enjoy low budget horror films, but I can spot them a mile away. I've not seen any that looked "Hollywood" they have their own special look. If someone knows of an indie film that could be mistaken for a straight up Hollywood Summer Blockbuster.. I'd like to see it.. because I don't know of any. There's always usually something missing.
What gives that aesthetic though? Is it just shooting on "film stock" that does it? As I said earlier I've seen several RED features that have that same aesthetic. go to RED's website and you'll see a slew of hollywood movies shot on digital!
So "film" isn't it.. at least not today.. those movies still have that "aesthetic" that I think comes from the combination of good art/production design, great actors, amazing lighting, great storytelling, great sound, great camera movement.
I'm not sure how Hollywood gets most of it right every single time (because alot of hollywood movies still SUCK badly, although they do have that aesthetic).
Many of us are after that aesthetic for our projects, because we know its what the mass audience expects when they watch a "movie". You can get away with different looks if your not trying to show your movie in a theater. but generally, thats what people expect, and not knowing anything about movie making.. they still can tell the difference between an "aesthetically pleasing" hollywood blockbuster, and their friends student film that was shot on a 5d or even the RED.. because it didn't have all the other pieces of the puzzle, or actors they recognize.
film look
I'm in the camp of "film look" = erroneous term created to describe indie film makers attempt to make their shot on video productions look like the stuff hollywood is doing with multi million dollar budgets.
I prefer to call it "cinematic", or the big budget movie look. There are exceptions to this rule, but we automatically know its a hollywood movie simply from its aesthetic.
They don't have to be shot on film to have it either. I've seen several RED features that to me had that same aesthetic, but they were all still fairly large budget films.
I can immediately tell the difference.
I actually enjoy low budget horror films, but I can spot them a mile away. I've not seen any that looked "Hollywood" they have their own special look. If someone knows of an indie film that could be mistaken for a straight up Hollywood Summer Blockbuster.. I'd like to see it.. because I don't know of any. There's always usually something missing.
What gives that aesthetic though? Is it just shooting on "film stock" that does it? As I said earlier I've seen several RED features that have that same aesthetic. go to RED's website and you'll see a slew of hollywood movies shot on digital!
So "film" isn't it.. at least not today.. those movies still have that "aesthetic" that I think comes from the combination of good art/production design, great actors, amazing lighting, great storytelling, great sound, great camera movement.
I'm not sure how Hollywood gets most of it right every single time (because alot of hollywood movies still SUCK badly, although they do have that aesthetic).
Many of us are after that aesthetic for our projects, because we know its what the mass audience expects when they watch a "movie". You can get away with different looks if your not trying to show your movie in a theater. but generally, thats what people expect, and not knowing anything about movie making.. they still can tell the difference between an "aesthetically pleasing" hollywood blockbuster, and their friends student film that was shot on a 5d or even the RED.. because it didn't have all the other pieces of the puzzle, or actors they recognize.
I guess the term needs to be "film feel". I sense a resistance to be educated and it happens a lot with kids trying to reinvent the wheel. "Film look" already has a meaning. Thirty years in the business and I witnessed the fledgling attempts at "film look". Again, it was video shot at a progressive framerate(combining fields) that achieved a very close approximation to the look of footage shot on film. Shooting film with deep depth of field or a very small range of lattitude or even just badly lit doesn't make it stop looking like film. And Red footage has a bit of a "film look" due to the framerate, but mostly it has an appealing aesthetic all its own.
Pietro Impagliazzo
Well-known member
Great post!
I think the 'film look' is often mistaken as good film-making. Discussing image only, I'd say good lighting and composition are the dead ringers for success. Aspect ratio can help, although it's used as a crutch by poor filmmakers to make their horrible film seem epic or screen worthy... usually by making it 2.39 and etc. The same goes for shallow DoF. Most of the time it's used for no reason other than to mimic something the filmmaker thinks is a film look... not to serve the story, but to simply add a false sense of worth to a film.
Good film making is the film look. I know this because I can show you 1,000 celluloid motion picture films which all have a different look, different lens selection, different DoF, different film stocks, different formats, and different aspect ratios. They all have that 'film look', but all look nothing alike!
-Ryan
PS: a trained cinematographer can see nuances in the actual image which will give away the medium, but that is not what we are talking about here, are we?
+infinite
A nice answer for the question every newbie asks.
Understanding the film look is hard because it involves MANY elements. Filmmaking is a hard undertaking!
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Sorry, there's no comparison to Coca-cola in 6 oz bottles to that syrupy mess that is provided en mass today... Same for Pepsi... something happened in the last 50 years... I can't put my finger on it... but there's just something different...
In sort of a strange coincidence... in another forum the topic of 'Chinatown'(1974) was discussed and 'why' it didn't quite give the sense of 30's/40's noir, despite the quality execution of the film...
My personal theory is depicted in these two shots...
I think the "Chinatown" shot is contrastier than the original... but the lighting 'theory' is completely different...
None of those two pictures looks like home video or student short film video or wedding video... so it is film look! Good dialog, amazing acting, staging, plot... it happens in theater too.
"The Blair Witch Project" was filmed on video then transfered to 35mm tape for ability to show it in the movie theaters. But Blair Witch never had and never will have the fillm look.
P.S. This wedding video http://vimeo.com/28809147 for me looks very cinematic, for me it has the "film look" I would like to see in my movies. It is a wedding, so mostly natural lighting, no staging, the people moves randomly, so... forget big budget movies, how to do similar look in my short movies? For my amateur films it will be "close enought"
"The Blair Witch Project" was filmed on video then transfered to 35mm tape for ability to show it in the movie theaters. But Blair Witch never had and never will have the fillm look.
P.S. This wedding video http://vimeo.com/28809147 for me looks very cinematic, for me it has the "film look" I would like to see in my movies. It is a wedding, so mostly natural lighting, no staging, the people moves randomly, so... forget big budget movies, how to do similar look in my short movies? For my amateur films it will be "close enought"
Last edited:
damiaanp
Member
sorryformypoorenglish
Why all the young video-makers (i am noob myself), wants DESPERATELY achive something that can.t be achive -just-like-that. There is no tutorial but learning, reading books about lighting, framing, art itself, paintings etc.. And all this FUNNY (...) videos on youtube for <youngfilmmakers<... this is bulls**t, they are just making money on all this dslr "revolution " trying to show you in 3 minutes how to make scene that looks like retarded hollywood movie, but you still dont know WHY are you doing this uber contrasty images + 2:40.1 aspect ratio and shooting f1.4 all the time.....
Focus on important factors.
Why all the young video-makers (i am noob myself), wants DESPERATELY achive something that can.t be achive -just-like-that. There is no tutorial but learning, reading books about lighting, framing, art itself, paintings etc.. And all this FUNNY (...) videos on youtube for <youngfilmmakers<... this is bulls**t, they are just making money on all this dslr "revolution " trying to show you in 3 minutes how to make scene that looks like retarded hollywood movie, but you still dont know WHY are you doing this uber contrasty images + 2:40.1 aspect ratio and shooting f1.4 all the time.....
Focus on important factors.
Last edited:
Film, video, digital... who cares?
Skilled pros might choose different filmstocks for different looks, so even film doesn't always look like film -- one looks different from another. It can be an artistic choice once everything else is right, but if something else is wrong (lighting, set design, sound, whatever), it's just another flavor of bad instead of a different shade of good.
Skilled pros might choose different filmstocks for different looks, so even film doesn't always look like film -- one looks different from another. It can be an artistic choice once everything else is right, but if something else is wrong (lighting, set design, sound, whatever), it's just another flavor of bad instead of a different shade of good.