How can I get a film look?

As discussed in the previous post below are two images: One created with a video camera (Sony F3) and the other created with a still camera (Canon 7D). Both created with emphasis on location, lens/angle, lighting, wardrobe, makeup, expression, and post production efforts. Even without motion, are both "cinematic", does one look like TV show vs. film., and can you really tell which was created with what?





:D
 
Last edited:
My 8mm footage is not digitized (how that process is called?).
Looking at your example I got idea that we may have different taste in the film look styles. The pair (second screenshot) for me looks like film look, and the girl (above) is more like fashion magasin cover and not a frame-from-movie.
About the film look styles. I like shallow focus and flat colors. Look at this, http://www.paranoias.org/2011/10/asit-photography/ ,for me it is pure film-look and I believe most of it was done with natural lights.

This was done messing with colors ir post.
http://kinomanai.lt/ff/download/file.php?id=851&mode=view
http://kinomanai.lt/ff/download/file.php?id=849&mode=view
http://kinomanai.lt/ff/download/file.php?id=848&mode=view

Can I rephrase the question into "How can I get a film look (or get close enought) - without budget, without fancy locations and big lighting sets and filming only with consumer DSLR?"
 
As for the still photos, a lot of that MAY have been natural light (it also may have been strobes involved), but a still photographer can wait for the exact time of day when the lighting is exactly what he wants. On anything other than a gazillion dollar Hollywood film you can't do that. We have 4 pages to shoot today, we're not sitting here for 2 hours waiting for the DP to say 'OK the light is perfect, now we only have 15 minutes to shoot the scene". It's two totally different worlds. For the most part we have to make out own light.

Back to your question, you do all the things settings wise talked about here and all over the forum (right frame rate, right shutter speed, right color profile, etc...) then you practice, a lot. You learn how to use light (natural or created), frame, use camera movement, etc...

It will NEVER be true that you can just point the magic box at something with the right settings and beautiful footage will come out. It'applying skill and knowledge to each shot to get the most out of it.
 
Nope. Lighting was used in both photos I posted, only in one to look more natural instead of "lit". And the top image adjusted in post to make background appear darker as if the subject was strobed with light, the original image actually looked pretty flat with some light on the talents face to lift the skin a little.

I don't believe you will get a "good" film-look with out some level of budget or use of equipment, locations, etc... but on the other hand you can be creative and use existing light to your advantage and whatever else you can gain access to for your project. The best way to learn getting a "film-look" is by just doing it and seeing for yourself the results and what you liked about it or did not.

With your DSLR stick with a shutter speed around 1/48 and record 24p as others have mentioned and it will go a long way. Start making films and analyse them later for what is missing or lacking. Work with others to expand your own skill set and trade skills with others. Many of us have spent years and years if not decades learning this craft - as there is s much to learn indeed!

Start now!
 
Take this or leave it:

When you have nothing else at your disposal, you will always have the ability to compose a shot that conveys a certain message.

Always.

No matter what camera you are using, no matter what lens, as long as you are exposed you can create a "cinematic look" by composing a shot properly. A well lit shot with poor composition is still a poor shot.

If you learn how to compose even with dry white walls, you will see the "cinematic look" that you're searching for.

TV looks like TV because it's composed specifically for the format and the conversion to broadcast standard. Although alot of television is moving away from such. Even still, there's a beauty there.

Mad Men is the best looking television show I have ever seen in my life, and as well lit as it is, the compositions are mind blowing.
 
starcentral said:
As discussed in the previous post below are two images: One created with a video camera (Sony F3) and the other created with a still camera (Canon 7D). Both created with emphasis on location, lens/angle, lighting, wardrobe, makeup, expression, and post production efforts. Even without motion, are both "cinematic", does one look like TV show vs. film., and can you really tell which was created with what?





:D
Click to expand...

I agree with what the other poster said. THe first is not cinematic.

The second is.

My brain tells me that in the first, the shooter wasn't going for cinematic. Main reason why? It's 50/50: there wasn't a clear decision on what was to be shown here, and because of that the crop is right at the hip and creates the image of too much headroom. That's not cinematic. But could easily be re-framed and have a different impact.
 
Interestingly enough, most high-end films that are shot today for theatrical digital projection or eventual tv release are shot at 30fps. The more knowledgeable producers don't want the 24/30 fps conversion "hickup" that is so sought and treasured by the noobee as affirmation of the "film look".
 
Last edited:
kennedymax said:
Interestingly enough, most high-end films that are shot today for theatrical digital projection or eventual tv release are shot at 30fps. The more knowledgeable producers don't want the 24/30 fps conversion "hickup" that is so sought and treasured by the noobee as affirmation of the "film look".
Click to expand...

I'd LOVE to see the data to back up this claim.
 
I'll admit to thinking the same. Thirty features, and not one shot 30fps. Though of course my thirty, is not the next person's thirty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top