Film Look

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.
 
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.
 
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
screenshot:
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!
 

Attachments

  • duck.jpg
    duck.jpg
    77.3 KB · Views: 0
Mattykins said:
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.
Click to expand...

more like apples to battleships
 
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.
 
bwwd said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 said:
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
Click to expand...

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 said:
Did you even read the thread? This video is incarnate, what this thread is about.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Jeff Anderson said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top