General Film Look - Correct Equipment, Wrong what...

T

TimAkers

Member
Hi there,

I know this has been asked a million times. However, I am very new to the community, and am having a hard time.

I recently picked up a T2i with a Tamron 17-50 f2/8 lens. I was in the market for the same lens for my T3i. However, I came across a whole filmmakers package on eBay for less than $700 (T2i -Lens,etc). It was a good deal, came with a Rode VideoMic and a 'Lensse - Steadicam Stabilizer' along with other little add-ons. Anyway, I found out that I have to send my T3i in to Canon to get repaired. There are some weird lines that show up during recording. And, also, the 24p doesn't actually work. Canon said it's still under warranty and I can send it to them for free.


Here is my dilemma, and was wondering you could help -
Most of the time I set my camera to:
24p
180 degrees Shutter Angle rule ((Framerate/(2*ShutterSpeed)) So, for 24p, I use ML at 1/47th as that's the closest to 180.
User Defined Picture Style
-4,-4,0,-2 or as flat as possible

Cameras, Lenses, Etc.:
T3i
T2I
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II SLR Lens (Plastic, Cheap, and Light)
Canon EF 50mm f1.8 (Plastic, Cheap, and Light) (Technically, it's 75mm due to the APS-C sensor.)
Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 Aspherical XR DiII SP Lens (Glass and Heavy)
5x Batteries
32Gb Extreme Sandisk (Magic Lantern installed for T2i)
16 Gb Sandisk (Magic Lantern installed for T3i)
Lensse Stabilizer Floater

For the T2i filmmakers package, here is the link while it's still available: http://www.ebay.com/itm/251241709414?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649






Lighting:
250 watt Home Depot Work light
500 watt Home Deport Work light
LED Home Depot Work Lamp (Just picked it up)


Audio:
Zoom H4n (When not used for capturing Audio for Video, it's used an external soundcard with Monitoring enabled, for better Midi-Recording.)
VideoMic
Mixcraft
Audacity
Sony - MDR-7506
M-Audio 88


Video Hardware:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130841


Product Number: 02g-p4-3653-kr A quick Copy/Paste into Google may help, or you can go here: http://www.evga.com/Products/Product.aspx?pn=02G-P4-3653-KR


I also bought a new Power Supply for my PC, to handle the new card.


Software: Here is where I have trouble.
Vegas Pro 12 64-bit
Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 (Fully Unlocked Trial)
Adobe After Effects CS6 (Fully Unlocked Trial)
Neatvideo - Trial (limited, with Watermark)
Gorilla Grain - Trial (Basic 16mm and such)
Film Grain - 35mm clean




My dilemma is: I cannot get a Film Look! I know I only have a B.S. in CIS, and missed my chance at Film School, but, this is what I want to do with my life. Where is the film look? Is it in the 'Cinematic' Presets? I thought it was supposed to be in the Filmic Fluidity (24p) in the capture itself. like the motion the actual video is recorded. I will put some footage out there soon. But, can anyone do a tutorial with your T2i/T3i from Raw to finished showing the difference. My footage is as flat and fluid samples that have been compared to, to the Canaon C100; the footage looks the same as my T2i. Is that normal for the T2i, and if so, how do I add that fluidity to it? How can I make this presentable for a shortfilm with that "art" look to it. I tried adding a Denoiser as well as adding Film Grain, even with the Trial versions, and they do not come out anything that I can present. The film grain I add is the 35mm clean; it's from the Gorilla Grain stuff, but was given to me, not the 16mm choppy stuff.


I can't seem to get that fluidity. Right now, to bring in revenue, I am creating a Food and Travel Web-Series. Until I can really get that "look" down, I am just working with what I have. I have tried two different bodies, and still the same look, is the result. I am saving for a BMCC, though, I am curious about the Red Scarlet, and using that for Digital Filmmaking.

I have been looking around for literature, books, tutorials, etc... about "why" the "shot" makes sense to the story. For instance, what the 'Rule of Thirds' actually is, why Wide Shots as opposed to Narrow, you know, basic cinematographer shots. None of that makes a difference though as to the "film look" I am trying to receive.


Oh, and I am learning Vegas at a slow rate, and Adobe at a slower rate. By doing this all myself, and I mean, literally all by myself, it's difficult to captivate everything I need to. But, once I do, then I can just guide someone else when I need to, when there is someone to guide. I would love to have a partner to work with, the way I've seen others, but I simply do not have that option right now. My wife does help when she can, but she works and is in college Full-Time. We also have two children, which are in PreSchool and Kindergarten.

Here is the point: I have all of the necessary equipment to get the right look and fluidity of "digital film." I have the proper audio capturing. I have enough lighting to pull out the sharpness I need. Most of the time the lighting is too bright, so I use the walls or objects around the room to bounce the light off and reduce shadows without overexposing.



How do I get that look I need? The 24p, is it really only in that? I don't really notice a difference in framerate, until we get to 60 or higher.


Thanks for everyone for everything, in advance.

Here is my YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/AkersTimothy?feature=watch
 
Last edited:
"Film look" is a buzz term used by internet goers. While film does have certain visual qualities, such as dynamic range and color recreation, most of the qualities attributed to "film look" are just cinematography choices. There have been people that made cinematic pieces on just consumer video cameras, and people that have made complete cinematic crap on ridiculously expensive professional cinema cameras. There are no books or tutorials that can tell you that X type of emotion requires X type of shot. Likewise no amount of gear can make a poorly composed, poorly lit shot look cinematic. Don't just throw a bunch of light at a scene and point the camera at it, know what each light is doing to the scene, and how its placement effects the overall look.

My advice would be to get off the internet, quit reading all this crap about "film look" and just go watch movies. Study how their shots are composed, how they're lit. Then think about how those shots make you feel. Cinematography is an art unto itself, and while you can learn the technical aspects of it, no amount of reading or schooling can teach you to be creative about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: djs
The camera has only a part in the film look, it is not the 'main' ingredient.

In my opinion, this is the order of ingredients of the film look:

- Setting / location (mise-en-scene)
- Framing (of that mise-en-scene)
- Lighting (of that mise-en-scene)
- Camera (amount of detail, DR, etc. your t2i however is capable of 'the look' but has the bare minimum qualifications IMO')
- Grading

In short my point is:
You can shoot a beautiful waterfall during sunset with a hot girl in front of it on an Iphone, and it will look amazing. If you shoot an ugly guy with a brick wall on the back ground, it will look ugly even if you would shoot it on an Alexa.
 
Ok firstly it's not the camera, some cameras produce more cinematic images than others but your cameras are perfectly capable. Buying a BMCC at this point would be a big mistake, you don't have the experience to make it shine (many BMCC owners will discover this), you'll get further with the T2i.

There are a number of factors in creating cinematic images, lighting correctly is crucial. There's plenty of stuff shot on film that doesn't look filmic because of poor lighting. I had a look at your noir example and it was all lit from the front, there was no backlight. Try backlighting first and then add a key and some fill if you need it. I've shot entire scenes with just one light, it's about knowing where to put the light.

Those work lights are great for some things but you need at least a couple of small lights that you can use to shape light with (sculpting with light). I have a few small hand help work light fixtures, the ones that take a regular household globe with a cage around the globe that you hang where you need them. I've got a bunch of difference wattage daylight (5600k) and tungsten (2700-3200k) CFL globes that I use in them. You can get some blackwrap http://www.filmtools.com/blacfoilblac.html to direct the light. I also use a comer CM-LBPS 1800 LED a lot, it has a flip down spotlight lens and is dimmable. There's a cheap Chinese copy of the comer on ebay for under $100 and I bought those handheld work lights from a hardware store for $10 each. I'd stay away from tungsten lights because they get very hot and you don't want to be practicing your lighting with them with kids in the house.

The other thing I do is work practical lighting, if I'm shooting in someones house I bring along my different wattage and colour temperature CFL globes and I change light bulbs in the house to get the feel I want, then I add some LED studio light where I need it. Always have some diffusion and some gels on hand too.

If you want to learn more about lighting download Barry Greens lighting tutorials, you'll learn more from them than a book. Also check out Shanes blog http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/ lots of good advice there.

Other ingredients in getting a cinematic look include production design (white walls are a killer unless you want to shoot 2001 a space odyssey). Lenses and framing (get the camera down low and get in close). Shallow depth of field unless you're shooting noir (stick to around f/2.8 except with long focal lengths). If you go too shallow it will look dreamy and pulling focus will be tough
(but you have 2 kids so if you can learn to keep them in focus actors are a breeze).

Another important ingredient is colour grading. Add a bit of vignetting and diffusion (don't overdo it) crush the blacks and play with the colours. Try the filmconvert and magic bullet looks demos.

Go to my vimeo page https://vimeo.com/rollingshutter and look at how I framed and lit things, a lot of it was available light that I had to fix in the grade. If you're shooting outdoors try to shoot at magic hour. Watch movies that you've seen many times and just focus on how the scenes are framed and lit.

I did go to film school but I studied writing, producing, and directing, I learned cinematography through observation, trial, and a lot of error.

You don't have to spend much, it's all about creativity.

Good luck and enjoy.
 
Thanks everyone for replying/

Squig,

I had to delete the Film Noir thing, as it wasn't mine, just the music was. I wrote and added the music long after the other gentlemen had completed his. Does a 5D Mark II do a better job with Film Fluidity? Your example at night, especially "Stakeout" is exquisite. Also, just like "Stakeout," the one with the park bench, is also really well done. And, it's completely simple: one frame, one shot, and a medium shot, where only dialog takes place, yet, it also has that "film" fluidity to it. Are those examples due to 24p and Grading? I mean, the lighting in both scenes are completely different. I think "Rolling Shutter" is would be the proper term for "Film Fluidity." I am still learning the terminology.

I will download Magic Bullet Mojo when I get ready to use it. Neatvideo, DeNoiser, puts a watermark on my stuff, so I try to stay away from it.

I will keep you posted, and try to create something soon.
 
A 5D won't look any different to a T2i as far as fluidity goes, the only major difference is the crop factor which affects the depth of field and field of view, which can be compensated for by lens choice and aperture.

Stakeout was lit with just 2 led panels, a key light in front of the car and a backlight behind the car.

The frame rate isn't the biggest factor in those scenes because there isn't much movement, it's mostly the framing, lighting, and grading that makes them cinematic (plus some good acting and directing). :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

Rolling shutter is a technical issue with CMOS camera sensors that can cause problems with film fluidity.

Just try shooting your kids somewhere scenic at magic hour with the 50mm and an ND filter and get the camera down close to the ground.
 
To OP, I believe the "film look" you are seeking is referring to the cinema look we see big budget movies in. Canon's t2i/5d will only ever shoot in 16:9 so to achieve the 2:33 cinemascope look you're going to have to use anamorphic adapters, otherwise the footage is going to always look "televisiony" and not really cinematic.
 
MattMyster said:
To OP, I believe the "film look" you are seeking is referring to the cinema look we see big budget movies in. Canon's t2i/5d will only ever shoot in 16:9 so to achieve the 2:33 cinemascope look you're going to have to use anamorphic adapters, otherwise the footage is going to always look "televisiony" and not really cinematic.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I have to firmly disagree with this. This feature was shot on still lenses and under (rumored) $50,000. Lighting, mise-en-scene, acting, and composition are all here and all together make a beautiful and cinematic image. This was shot with no anamorphic lenses to my knowledge.

https://vimeo.com/57342043

To the OP, your questions have been answered above. A paintbrush does not make a great artist, or piece of art. Study lighting, mise-en-scene, focal lengths at diffent lengths, basic composition. Also realize that the "filmic look" happens in temporal space, as well specific frames. A photograph can be have qualities of film, but mastering them in 24 per second creates cinema.

And then theres sound.

You've got some very helpful and detailed advice above.
 
I have enough lighting to pull out the sharpness I need. Most of the time the lighting is too bright, so I use the walls or objects around the room to bounce the light off and reduce shadows without overexposing.
Click to expand...

There's part of the issue.

"Filmic". Im not sure who coined that phrase, but I find it silly. It suggests to me the act of trying to mimic the characteristics of film. Why do I need to when shooting digital? I'm trying to portray a story, how does having my shot emulate film help that?

There is another word - cinematic. Cinematic = something worthy of cinema.

Whats in a cinematic experience?

Story
Acting
Sound
Production Design
Cinematography
Direction

Let's separate cinematography for a moment. What's the goal? To create images that serve the story, which will determine theme and mood, which in turn determine type of lighting / how much / colour and where AND composition.

Think of lighting like sculpting wood - you grab a chunk big enough to create your object then when you're sculpting the object you're removing until you have your finished piece. EDIT TO ADD: Motivation, motivation, motivation.
 
MattMyster said:
To OP, I believe the "film look" you are seeking is referring to the cinema look we see big budget movies in. Canon's t2i/5d will only ever shoot in 16:9 so to achieve the 2:33 cinemascope look you're going to have to use anamorphic adapters, otherwise the footage is going to always look "televisiony" and not really cinematic.
Click to expand...

You don't need to shoot anamorphic, just crop it with letterboxing. Same effect but a heck of a lot easier and cheaper.
 
"You don't need to shoot anamorphic, just crop it with letterboxing. Same effect but a heck of a lot easier and cheaper."

It is not the same effect. That's just flat wrong.

It is cheaper.
 
mail4joeg said:
"You don't need to shoot anamorphic, just crop it with letterboxing. Same effect but a heck of a lot easier and cheaper."

It is not the same effect. That's just flat wrong.

It is cheaper.
Click to expand...

99% of people would never notice the difference. Certainly not with shooting digital anyways.
 
First of all, to all who have contributed to this, thank you so much for the responses. I am looking up some tutorials and books on lighting and composition.

Noel and Ryan,
I am currently reading a book from Kurt Lancaster about using DSLR's to attain that "cinematic" image. Though it is going slowly, as I am also learning about color grading and general editing. From what I have seen and read, lighting and shooting flat are key so far. I hate the idea of shooting so flat that I am completely dependent in grading in post.

Thank you for all of your advice everyone. I just wrote a dialogue-driven short earlier today, but am still learning how to tweak it so it's ready to use for shooting. I am using Celtx.

Thank you,

Tim
 
TimAkers said:
From what I have seen and read, lighting and shooting flat are key so far. I hate the idea of shooting so flat that I am completely dependent in grading in post.
Click to expand...

No, lighting and shooting flat are not key, in my professional opinion.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with achieving the look you are after "in-camera", as there is a big difference in cameras which shoot raw or log than cameras which bake-in their look when it comes to shooting flat and pushing the grade in post.
 
One suggestion I would make, is to use sunlight whenever possible. Go to whatever lengths you have to and bounce real sunlight from windows etc. This will make a HUGE impact on what looks slightly more "filmic" and what appears a bit more "digital". Like others have said it's just a buzz word, however there are some innate qualities of celluloid, that seem to translate over to digital now and again in the right circumstances. Most digital video under tungsten lighting comes off as just regular HD video most of the time... it's hard to escape that look. Even that trailer for Upstream Color that was posted above... hardly used any artificial lighting except as an accent. The film looked absolutely stunning in the theater and really "felt" like a film, rather than a film shot on video. The main reason overall, was that they used sunlight and molded it to get their look.

I'm not advocating to not use lighting... just that you try and incorporate real sunlight whenever possible. And before you start investing too much into a higher priced system... take a look at the GH2 before you drop any coin. It was used to shoot upstream color, and a lot of other indie films. In fact, I might say use that until the cheaper 1k blackmagic camera comes out later this year.
 
Again, thanks. I am finishing up a screenplay right now, and am in the editing stage for it. Afterwards, I will start shooting it. The screenplay is purposely written so it's shot outside on a park bench somewhere. As I am learning about grading and such, it appears easier to achieve the mood I am aiming for, for this particular project, by using fresh, natural light. Also, thanks to Magic Lantern for allowing me to control the settings a little more, on my DSLR's.

This community rocks!
 
Film look =
hollywood style acting
elaborate sets
extras
good wardrobe
good lighting
hollywood style camera movements
good pacing
excellent audio and sound effects

nothing should feel cheap
shoot on anamorphic is a plus
good script is a plus, but completely unnecessary for a film look.

I got a couple pages under "film look" in the works http://www.filmbrute.com/the-film-look/
 
David W. Jones said:
No, lighting and shooting flat are not key, in my professional opinion.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with achieving the look you are after "in-camera", as there is a big difference in cameras which shoot raw or log than cameras which bake-in their look when it comes to shooting flat and pushing the grade in post.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
There are several tutorial programs available for purchase that may help you a good bit. The Lighting for Film and Television is well worth the money, as well as the companion sound for film and television. There is also an excellent tutorial on the 24P filming by David Jimerson. This will help explain all of the factors to get the proper 24P look when you film and then when you edit. I found that it made a huge difference in my workflow.

Sincerely,
Bill
 
How you use light, artificial or natural, to compose your images has everything to do with achieving a cinematic look. Light is your paint brush.
If the scene does not look like you want it in front of the camera, the camera can't create an appropriately cinematic result on its own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top