How to accomplish this type of look?

S

Snapper123

Well-known member
Hey guys, just watched a F3 test/short film, and throughout, I thought it looked amazing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH9GNBon2mo

-Throughout the day shots, the light illuminated the faces perfectly; just the right amount of rim light along the cheekbones and contours, a little bit of red and color, the right amount of depth and realism.

-Throughout the night shots, the faces weren't absolutely eye-watering, but they looked acceptable and realistic none-the-less.

-The overall color and contrast in many shots is superb, and this video tends to show everything from a bit of contrasty styles to superflat looks; my favorite being the spoon scene, and the wide-angle ferris wheel shot at 1:42.

-A lot of natural light seems to be used in this piece; half of the shots have shot the two subjects from far away, where the faces still look superb; maybe there's a technical light far in the distance off-cam, maybe it's just the sun.

-The night shots are very obviously not technically lit and they very obviously only use the street and sign lights as any sort of illuminence.

How do I achieve this using a Canon DSLR? To be completely honest, I don't care what anyone says, half the shots in this piece, if not all of them, are shot natural and seems to rely on the camera picking up just the right amount of contrast and color to make an outdoor face look realistic. I wouldn't go as far as to say the DP cared much for actor placement; just a few of the day scenes look well blocked.

A big point of this is this is the F3; it virtually seems to see in the dark. With Canon, it's either you have a super high contrast and saturation and thus a realistic face, or you dial down the contrast and saturation and then your subjects look like zombies no matter how well you try to set up the shots. I've yet to find a great little mid-point with my camera; I've yet to find the look of the video above.

Here's another example where the same aesthetic is achieved:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBh6x0U1o9A

I mean, if this type of look just can't be done with the Canon series (it seems that city night tests prove how different in contrast the Canon is vs. the F3) then I think I may just have to shoot on the F3 from now on. I mean, wether it's the faces or the surroundings, these two videos are almost IDENTICAL in aesthetic, level, and tone to the look I need to one of my projects. It just doesn't seem to be a complex look, yet I've not once come close to this with my DSLR no matter how many picture styles or lighting experiments I try.
 
Last edited:
SIGH...here we go again. DUDE...just stop using canon cameras and be done. Go shoot with the f3, RED or Alexa. its like the same thing over and over with you. Continue blaming your camera for your shortcomings...while we will continue to shoot films....on our, dare i say it...CANON.
 
Last edited:
F3 + Arri primes = tens of thousands of dollars. Of course you're not going to reproduce those looks on a DSLR and (relatively) cheap primes.
 
jambredz said:
SIGH...here we go again. DUDE...just stop using canon cameras and be done. Go shoot with the f3, RED or Alexa. its like the same thing over and over with you. Continue blaming your camera for your shortcomings...while we will continue to shoot films....on our, dare i say it...CANON.
Click to expand...

+1111

what's up with asking for advice when you SEEM to know a lot Snapper123, and Explaining for the people you are asking Advice from, it's like drinking your own piss, or something... what's the point/goal? Proove that canon DSLR's are lously cameras? lol, they're pretty flawed, yeah... good morning.
 
Last edited:
It can all be done with Canon DSLR's. It can be done with Panasonic DSLR's. It can be done with Nikon. There is too much stuff he is doing for one thread to reasonably explain...but you already know this. Read the forum like I did.
 
It's just that I've never gotten solid advice on this forum. Not once. Half the people don't know crap what they are talking about and others guard their secrets like the CIA. You can't read things that have never been posted on this forum.

I mean, I've seen tests with the Canon vs. F3 between Canon's Technicolor profile (arguably the flattest in existence) and a general F3 profile, at night, and it was instantly obvious that the F3 has an extremely, extremely flat contrast without sacrificing an ounce of color. It plain out seems to have an incredible range that by a large amount seems to look more like the human eye than the Canon's do. In a naturalistic production, like a documentary or romantic short film, this, to me, would be essential. If I were shooting a contrasty teenage-made Soldier film, a contrasty Canon look may be better for the purpose. People need to stop thinking I'm bagging on Canon when I'm simply pointing out a purpose and giving an example of the look I'd like to achieve.

I mean, if no one has an answer to how the look in these two videos would be achieved on a Canon DSLR, then it's obvious that either no one actually knows, or it can't be done. As I've said, in my experience, the Canon DSLR's either can achieve an extremely flat, washed look that has a slightly better light range at the expense of a lack of realistic color, or they can accomplish an extremely contrasty look that looks like a contrasty horror B-film. I've never actually seen a Canon video that seems to have a realistic light range, more or less, while holding up color realism. It's just two different ends of the spectrum that from what I've seen, the F3 seems to do right out of the box.
 
Last edited:
Snapper123 said:
I've never actually seen a Canon video that seems to have a realistic light range, more or less, while holding up color realism. It's just two different ends of the spectrum that from what I've seen, the F3 seems to do right out of the box.
Click to expand...

There is a very obvious price discrepancy between these two camera systems that should make this obvious.

Now why can't I get my GH2 to match up with 70mm Imax footage?
 
As far as the daylight shooting goes it looks like both were shot on overcast days. Also they are both in areas that have either tall buildings or trees that create shadowed areas. Nothing is shot in a bright sunlight situation. So try to shoot in these types of conditions because canon dslrs can't handle extreme contrast situations. Really from what i've seen the f3 blows highlights pretty badly as well so I wouldn't say it's the camera contributing to the look but more of the shooter paying attention to his lighting and seeking low contrast settings and times of day.
 
Snapper123, I recommend you keep your negative tone in check if you want to benefit from this forum.

Let's keep the discussion civil and constructive, please.

As far as your question- I've seen people to amazing things with these cameras, and I've seen people make dreck with more expensive cameras. They are just tools, and when used properly can yield excellent results. The questions you ask are too vague for anyone to properly answer on an internet forum.
 
Last edited:
I'd agree with what the others have said -

1. You can get SIMILAR results with the DSLR's utilizing very good lenses, care in the shooting and time spent in the color grading/editing process. On Bloom's sight and Vincent Laforet's sight there is some amazing stuff, and there's also a lot of amazing stuff here....so people are doing it with these cameras.
2. It won't ever be quite the same as a $13,300 camera and lenses that cost more than my car! The DSLRs don't resolve as well as video only sensors, so you are hampered right out of the gate.
3. Maybe look at the D7000 for an alternative to the Canon's look. Maybe it's the overall look you don't care for. The Nikon is different right out of the box. (everyone please notice I didn't say better, just different)
 
+1 MG

compared to someone picking up a camera for the first time, i can probably do a better job of getting an acceptable image and also getting a variety of looks by using aperture... pic styles... likewise, i expect that, say, philip bloom could do an exponentially better job than i.

i was a musician in a former life, and i played with a guitarist who always had a problem: his amp wasn't right, the strings weren't in tune... so he could rarely deliver his "best." contrast it with another player who somehow could always make music, no matter the setting. different life philosophies...
 
Snapper123 said:
It's just that I've never gotten solid advice on this forum. Not once. Half the people don't know crap what they are talking about and others guard their secrets like the CIA. You can't read things that have never been posted on this forum.
Click to expand...

No, Snapper; THIS is the problem you're actually having:

Snapper123 said:
To be completely honest, I don't care what anyone says, half the shots in this piece, if not all of them, are shot natural . . .
Click to expand...

This is exactly how you approach what pretty much everyone says to you.

It's not that you're not getting good information; it's that you're rejecting the information you do get.
 
all shooting and no new toys makes forum a dull place

(and notice I'm not saying this is good or bad)
 
Snapper: You know this anecdote? It goes:

A tourist walks up to a cab driver in New York and says, "Hey, do you know how to get to Carnegie Hall?"

Cab driver replies, "Practice, practice, practice."

You can get the look these F3s are delivering with a 550D if you know what you're doing and you know your tools well enough. It's a challenge, but it's doable. On a 5D MKII it's less challenging but it's not easy. For example the wide where they're walking under the trees. They're parallell the trees so you're in a tough spot. On a Canon that's going to alias all to hell, so film it a little soft. Use your 10x zoom and pull your focus so it's just a smidge OOF. When you put it together later, people won't even notice that slight OOF if you put just the right touch on it, and it'll save you the ugly aliasing. This works especially good on any wide shot you're trying to pull off in the city where it's going to moire and alias. It's a very fine line between slightly OOF while preserving the illusion of clarity and simply OOF.

Experiment. Shoot a lot and don't worry if it's something you're going to upload. Just set yourself a challenge and do a test shoot to see if you can reproduce a look.

Try out some vintage manual lenses that soften and process light differently and have more aperture blades so you can get more circular bokeh without spending $4,000 on a Leica prime. Lots of Russian Soviet Era lenses are good for this, and especially vintage Zeiss primes if you can afford them. They'll still be significantly cheaper than new cine primes. Look for deals, build effective equipment. Then film, a lot, and figure out when your camera is weak and strong and film to your strengths. Then get good in post. The look in these films you linked aren't coming straight out of the camera like that. There's some very subtle and high class color grading going on there.

A more expensive camera gives you more leeway to not get it perfect when you shoot so you can fix it later. A less expensive camera means you have to put it in the can perfect if you want the look you're going for later. And perfect ain't easy.
 
Foxd33 said:
Shoot in technicolor then boost the saturation in post? Or I guess you want it directly from camera?
Click to expand...

Having worked with Technicolor a bit, I think it's better to get saturation and highlight levels to where you want in camera, then just dial down sat/black levels. Boosting anything even a little bit can often reveal ugly macroblocking because of the codec. I still apply a bit of an S curve to the luma, but I'm careful not to raise the highs too much.
 
hendosan said:
Having worked with Technicolor a bit, I think it's better to get saturation and highlight levels to where you want in camera, then just dial down sat/black levels. Boosting anything even a little bit can often reveal ugly macroblocking because of the codec. I still apply a bit of an S curve to the luma, but I'm careful not to raise the highs too much.
Click to expand...

I agree hendosan. I shot an entire music video using the Technicolor picture style and a lot of my night footage turned out awful with the macroblocking (here's a link to that http://vimeo.com/23506062).

I had to fix most of the footage with a good degrain filter in post (NeatVideo - it's a miracle worker. The best plugin for the money around at $100. I recommend it). I've gone back to shooting neutral in nearly all conditions. Technicolor is still a good performer in broad daylight though, as it balances highlights and shadows in a way neutral can't. Nearly all other situations though, I go neutral. Technicolor is really bad indoors at night when you're lighting a set - it's TOO flat and you get terrible banding in solid color areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top