If anyone has seen Days of Being Wild or Fallen Angels or Happy Together you'll know what I'm talking about. I love how these movies look, and the minimal lighting used. Is there a way to mimic this sort of look or get something close, and if so, is it just stuff done in post?
GH1 look like an older WKW movie?
- Thread starter Revsta
- Start date
djkarn105
Well-known member
yes. But it has very little to do with the camera.
One of the features the GH-1 has that the others don't is the ability to shoot at very low shutter speeds which is an effect Wong uses quite often.
But if you want your film to look like WKW, the camera should be low on your list of concerns. His art direction is always exquisite.
One of the features the GH-1 has that the others don't is the ability to shoot at very low shutter speeds which is an effect Wong uses quite often.
But if you want your film to look like WKW, the camera should be low on your list of concerns. His art direction is always exquisite.
Don't forget to hire the brilliant Christopher Doyle as your cinematographer as well! 
If you're specifically going for the "Fallen Angels" look, I belive that entire movie was shot with one extremely wide angle lens. You may want to get something like the 8mm Peleng for the GH1 if you're going for that wide of a look. Each film you mention had a different approach to lighting, and I'm not sure if it was only "available light". "Happy Together" and "Days of Being Wild" both were lit with movie lights in many of the scenes. But I understand what you mean. DJkarn has a good point too about the art direction of those films. The color and texture of the sets were created by the great production designer Wiliam Chang. These films did have a little bit of a budget, after all. They weren't created on a shoestring.
But, if you're trying to get close to this look without the expenditure, and without the genius of WKW, Doyle and Chang, I'd recommend finding well-lit, colorful urban locations. Lots of brightly painted walls, or neon lights, etc. Try to let the real world do the art direction for you. Get some fast primes so you can shoot in available light at a reasonable ISO. Then in post, fiddle with the contrast and saturation to see if you can mimic the WKW look. One thing I've noticed is that he loves to shoot his actors under orange/red lighting. Or at the very least, he color times his films very warm. You may experiment with how urban nightscapes look with different white balance settings...warm things up or cool them off.
The slow shutter speed effect will work, too, but I'd only recommend that for certain shots. I wouldn't shoot a whole movie that way!
If you're specifically going for the "Fallen Angels" look, I belive that entire movie was shot with one extremely wide angle lens. You may want to get something like the 8mm Peleng for the GH1 if you're going for that wide of a look. Each film you mention had a different approach to lighting, and I'm not sure if it was only "available light". "Happy Together" and "Days of Being Wild" both were lit with movie lights in many of the scenes. But I understand what you mean. DJkarn has a good point too about the art direction of those films. The color and texture of the sets were created by the great production designer Wiliam Chang. These films did have a little bit of a budget, after all. They weren't created on a shoestring.
But, if you're trying to get close to this look without the expenditure, and without the genius of WKW, Doyle and Chang, I'd recommend finding well-lit, colorful urban locations. Lots of brightly painted walls, or neon lights, etc. Try to let the real world do the art direction for you. Get some fast primes so you can shoot in available light at a reasonable ISO. Then in post, fiddle with the contrast and saturation to see if you can mimic the WKW look. One thing I've noticed is that he loves to shoot his actors under orange/red lighting. Or at the very least, he color times his films very warm. You may experiment with how urban nightscapes look with different white balance settings...warm things up or cool them off.
The slow shutter speed effect will work, too, but I'd only recommend that for certain shots. I wouldn't shoot a whole movie that way!
Thanks, guys! Not trying to "mimic" the WKW look, just trying to add some grain and some UMPH to the GH1, because it's very clean looking and the feature I'm shooting is very gritty and rough and non-romantic in many parts and I want to reflect that with my camera, and so far it's been hard as hell to get a lens wide enough to distort and get the shots I need. I have an FD mount right now so my best bet is the 7.5mm probably? Unless anyone knows another way.
I am trying to find the grittiest locations I can as well, and you're right about the art direction and the colors. I may end up going black and white with a slight overexposure for a lot of this as we're shooting in Maine in the winter.
I am trying to find the grittiest locations I can as well, and you're right about the art direction and the colors. I may end up going black and white with a slight overexposure for a lot of this as we're shooting in Maine in the winter.
If you're going for "slight overexposure" as you say, if you're talking about the highlights blowing out like they do in the beginning section of "Happy Together", I'd recommend doing that in post. Overexposure on the GH1 looks different than overexposing 35mm film. If you shoot a nice, well-exposed image, you have much more control in post regarding overexposure of highlights. Plus, if you change your mind, you can revert to a properly exposed image. If you shoot overexposed, there's no getting that highlight detail back. If you really plan to shoot black and white, and want a gritty look, I'd shoot some tests at high ISO...like 1600 without any noise reduction. Then, pull out the saturation in post. The noise may end up looking like film grain...in a good way. If you like that look, you'll be able to shoot at night locations with very little light.
Nitsuj
Well-known member
Yeah Christopher Doyle is one of the best cinematographers in the business. 2046 is just jaw dropping. The look you are wanting is all about the men behind the camera and not the camera itself. I think the GH1 can pull off some amazing looks depending on the artists using it.
Nitsuj
Well-known member
Yeah you gotta be careful not to blow out your highlights. It's a skill to get the best exposure for what you know you are going to do in post. I also think the B&W high ISO is a good idea. I have tried it and getting B&W to look like film is much easier to do than color. The natural grain you get from the high ISO looks much better than grain you add in post from my tests and views. Whenever I am out at night with my GH1 and see something that looks good I usually capture it in B&W because the high ISO grain is much more forgiving and pleasing to the eye than in color.
Shot some tests at 1600 ISO with my 24mm 2.8 FD. I really kind of like it, and I like some of the blow outs. It also seems to me like the banding in low light is gone...I shot in my bathroom at 2.8 with nothing but light from about 50 feet away windows coming in and got no banding, but a pretty contrasty image. I think this might work for what I'm going for in terms of the feel of Winter in maine, and the bleak outlook of the film. A fast really wide prime would probably just make this a dream.
Nitsuj
Well-known member
Keep in mind that if it looks good on your monitor it may not look good on a variety TV. Thats why its good to stay within limits so you can be a little assured it will look okay on a wide variety of sets. You can never be completely certain but you have a pretty good idea by staying within the limits. If it is just for web then that is a different story but if it is a feature like I thought I read earlier then you might want to keep that in mind.
Yeah I checked it out on my computer monitor, and I have a few TVs in the house. I mean, I want a non-perfect image. I want it to look harsh and rough, because the GH1 is so pretty. I am going to use the pretty image during certain scenarios, but there are some really tough situations in this film and I need my camera to reflect it.
What's your advice on shooting with blow outs and what not? You think I shouldn't do them in camera? You think I should shoot HIGH ISO with NDs for shallow and then blow it out in post?
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
I did an impromptu test the other night in 'low light' and with my GH1 (delivered on 4 Jan...) there is 'banding' in the low light shot, at an ISO of 1600. I'll have to check, but I think it was set up for 720p60. The stock lens wide open, so f/4. It was sort of a grab shot and I didn't take much time to go beyond turn on camera, point, shoot...
The Foot Candle reading was about .5 fc (cheap hydroponics type meter... but better than nothing...).
The banding appeared to be on 1/8 the vertical hight boundaries, and showed, obvioulsy, when I boosted the image in FCE, as the highest value in the image was only about muddle grey...
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Unless there's a very specific reason, I would always go with making the camera image as 'data full' as possible. With the compression technique, with the 'low' resolution (relative to say a 4k resolution...), any thing done by the camera for an effect throws away data(*)... that can never be recovered, unless one reshoots. So, if reshooting is not a problem... well sure... go a head... but even a studio shot, with willing talent... will 'cost' seting up again... and who knows perhaps the talent's performance will never again match the 'rejected for visual reasons' material...
Sure back in the olden days of film, one did have to a priori decide whether to go with a processing technique or not... and live with the results...
These days, I think using the NLE and filters allows one to get interesting effects, and tweak them... or mung until no good... which ever...
The only 'effect' I'd typically use 'in camera' would be white balance, which is done on nearly direct sensor data, at full resolution before compression (I'd have to verify that for the GH1...), but such processing as B&W, or even ISO value beyond what is needed to get the shot... 'does something' which is not reversable.
I've not experiemented with such things as the grain filters, to get that high ISO 'film look', but that may cover a couple of things when done in the NLE... one being the 'jaggies' by uprezing to 4K then add grain at 4K... the down rezing... the 'randomized' grain pattern could lessen the regularity of the 'jaggies'...
Last edited:
I have experienced grain filters--and they suck in my experience. Contrast boost seems to work, same with saturation, but I don't know. A lot of people believe in shooting clean, and a lot believe in shooting in camera. I've always been a more of an in camera guy, but as a director I don't shoot a lot of coverage either so maybe my whole paradigm in which I work is different.
Martti Ekstrand
Veteran
For making footage look like gritty push-processed negative stock look no further than After Effects Film Grain plug-in - it's massively tweakable and can mimic almost any grain I've seen. Or, if you have a example clip with grain you like, use AEs 'Match Grain' plug to get a near-perfect imitation.
Nitsuj
Well-known member
I personally like Standard more but Smooth seems to show less noise at that high ISO. I did a little comparison test today to show. I was surprised how well 1600 ISO holds up in B&W. Color is a different story. This is with one light source at 1600 ISO just to see how the different modes compare in noise. Smooth looks like less noise but the skin tones bother me a little. Smooth mode has an almost metallic quality to it if that makes any sense.