Obtaining the ultimate film look

Justin_Kirch

Justin_Kirch

Runner Up.
I know I haven't posted much and have less experience than most of you with the DVX, but I have noticed some things that may help someone obtain the film look they are looking for.

First of all, depth of field is a major contributor to the film look! The less depth of field makes you focus on one subject matter, as opposed to keeping a wide angle the whole time where everything is in focus. You want your audience to be forced to look at something! Make them look at it. Don't let them roam around the viewing area to see how much the image looks like video! So hit that shutter speed button and open up your iris to make some cool images!

Also, colors are very prominent in film work. Many people who want the film look do not pick a good color palette to work with and have a wide array of colors on the screen. Pick one color that stands out on the screen. The audience will be pulled to that subject because it stands out. I have noticed on a few peoples screen grabs that there is nothing interesting to look at because everything is in the same focal length and it doesn't grab the eye! Create something so the audience maintains interest!

Finally and most importantly, I have noticed on almost all occasions that high key lighting kills the film look you are looking for. Flat lighting is very infomercial-esque and it doesn't create depth in the frame. Another way to create an image the audience is forced to see is to light the subject accordingly. I'd rather like to see the defining facial features of a talent then have their face bleached out with one high key light, where you don't see any definition in their face.

Flame as you will. I just thought I'd put in my 2 cents.
 
I'm not interested in flaming, let's call it a discussion!

Depth of field is nice to have, but personally I put it fairly low on the "must have" list of film look requirements. Properly lit and composed footage can look very filmic even in the straight-up 1/3" format (I put 24p, or at very least 30p, at the top of the requisites). Forcing the viewer's eye to a subject can certainly be achieved by other methods than focus alone (again, lighting and composition are two key factors).

Color choice is a good aim. However, once again I think that even with a multi-colored palette it is possible to get good results, by making framing choices within that space. However I'm not sure about your reference to focal length in a discussion of color? Regarding that concept, there have been some notable feature films made at a single focal length...moving the camera closer or further from the subject creates all of the variation those filmmakers (such as Polanski or Wes Anderson) required.

Not sure about the last paragraph--are you saying that BOTH high key lighting and flat lighting are bad (with the preference to "light the subject accordingly")? Certainly if one was looking to emulate a film noir or glamour look, high key would a good choice. And an overcast day, with a soft, flat quality of look can look gorgeous on day exteriors. The instance of a bleached face--perhaps that is more of a function of exposure and/or intensity of a given lighting setup than the actual style of using a high key light?

Again, Justin, not looking to flame but to qualify. I think I see what you are suggesting and I largely agree with you.
 
Interesting thread

I think it's interesting to approach color cinematography in a similar manner to black and white. Always try to have something that is true white and something true black in the frame (unless artistically desired otherwise). Helps give the illusion of better dynamic range at least.

As for lighting: I think the lighting style should depend on the narrative. I wouldn't use flat lighting in a noir shoot for example. That said, I ABSOLUTELY love backlighting! It makes pictures come alive and enhances the percieved contrast and sharpness.
 
Shaw said:
That said, I ABSOLUTELY love backlighting! It makes pictures come alive and enhances the percieved contrast and sharpness.
Click to expand...

I agree. I also use backlighting if I really want to separate the foreground from the background. I think the careful use of backlighting provides equally good depth of field as focus. I think it's more subtle than forcing the viewers to look at one thing/person by blurring everything else. Most of my favorite DP's use very deep depth of field, yet maintain the 3 dimensional depth by other means.

:grin: CAVEMAN
 
Everything is not technical. Although an incredible amount of time is spent discussing "What's the best light" "What's shutter speed" etc. There is another part of this picture. . . and that is the art of shooting pleasing or dynmaic representation of human life.
I believe that's what Mr. Kirsch is implying. All cameras whether still or motion, whether film or tape all are attempting to duplicate the human eye and it's film (the brain). What Mr Kirsch is saying is "Take a look at the picture" is it pleasing? Does it draw you, the viewer, into the scene and make you become part of it? Walter Graff said something in a post the other day that made me really laugh. "Stop focusing on the hammer and try to be a better carpenter". Just a thought.
 
Here are the technical factors that do it for me:

1) Great Shot Composition-- You can't fake this one. Good cinematography choices with regard to framing, lighting direction, camera POV, etc., so that your story is told in the most powerful and believable way possible--without the cinematography drawing atention to itself.

2) Widescreen Aspect Ratio-- The balancing of a frame, ample "look-space", and the ability to steer the viewer to focus on what you, the filmmaker, considers important, is a huge bonus.

3) 24fps Frame Rate-- Makes motion look more "cinematic." Making sure shutter speed also matches what a film camera would typically do helps, too (x2 the speed of the fps, or 1/48th sec., in most cases).

4) Camera Movement-- Very subtle trucking/dollying of the camera adds to the illusion, as the standard "video" look is either shaky-handheld, locked-down, or zoomed/telephotoed. Just saw Million Dollar Baby and almost every tight close-up had incremental dolly movements in it.

5) Color/Lighting/Exposure-- When the lighting schemes are as well thought-out as they are for real film projects, the result is clearly evident.

6) Shallow DOF-- Another great plus, if you have the space and resources to get it (ND filters, long lenses, etc.)
 
Charles has put things as clearly as you'll find, DOF is a rather overused term to signify a "film" look.

To achieve a "film" look with video, you need to understand lighting, as lighting will create that "look" you want.
 
Charles, I agree with everything you say, after all, I am still learning.

The things I posted were just examples of what people are asking for to obtain that look. I keep reading posts on "how do I get the film look, etc.". After reading many responses, I summed up a lot of what everyone said and condensed. In most cases to obtain what you are looking for just takes plenty of practice. We all have different styles. My style is most definitely different from any of your styles. I love using short DOF in many of my shots, I just think it makes my art more pleasant considering the lack of equipment I have.

Gary basically has my idea. I just look at the whole frame, and most likely I don't like long DOF because it doesn't satisfy my work.
 
I think Bart and Charles have both summed it up nicely. And at the risk of sounding redundant I'll try and touch on the other elements mentioned;

"Picking the right Color Pallette"

This is a kind NO/YES answer to that. Look at SS's Schindler's List in all of its black and white glory; no color pallete used here but I think it's one of the most wonderfully shot films ever made; (and no; this is with no reference to the little girl's RED jacket). Take other films like The Godfather or Black Hawk Down, Gladiator and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Remake; those color palletes practically consist of no color at all; a very desaturated image with hints of color and severe underexposure (My kind of image by the way).

Maybe this raises the same question in regards to: FOCAL LENGTH and COLOR PALETTE and their relation? (I don't know! I'm asking you!)

I think DOF stylistically is a wonderful approach and one of the many 'tricks' available to us but it is in no way required; see Chinatown or the many other killer films shot wide open. See any painting master's work and they're not purposely blurring the canvas to get our attention but are using elements Charles suggests such as the use of light and the subjects framing (comp) within the canvas.

I love a nice DOF but also put it on the short list of must have elements. However, I find it much more challenging to get the my point across onscreen using these methods that using a shallow DOF to do the trick.

My favorite style of lighting is the 'Light and Dark' method; I am still learning this art. But properly lit no matter the genre or style and it will scream to us.

OKay; I'm off to play basketball now.
 
Well, in regards to Black and White filming, of course there isn't any color, but it is still a choice to shoot with NO COLOR by the director, and if we get technical, black and white is a color. He shot Schindlers List like this because it takes place in the past and it was a dark time in history.


I'm not defending myself on any of your comments, but with MOST films being shot with color, a lot of the choices the director makes for how the film looks are intentional. Desaturated colors or bleached colors are still part of the color palette. They just aren't as bright as they would be! See what I mean?
 
I'm still new to shooting and making films. But I am an avid movie fan. Please forgive my 2 yen worth of non-technical input.

I agree with John about color. Often the use of a single color or nearly no color is very effective. Look at "The Machinist" which is nealy shot only in heavy blue colors (almost blue and white) that casts a powerful mood over the entire film. And Gladiator and BlackHawk Down with so little absolute color create worlds that are immediate and vibrant.

For me the key to a film's impact is aligning the movement, color and lighting to match the message of the film. Again "The Machinist" tells a fairly dark story with little movement and starkly blue colors in most scenes to share the despair and isolation of the lead character.

"Snow Falling on Cedars" is one of my favorite films from a cinematography point of view. High contrast images, often with very low color range and the use of stark framing and soft focus which creates the mood where memory and reality blur. No film has better captured the Northwest sound and coastal waters in winter than the sequences with the fishing boat in that film. Simply perfect.

I'm still learning how to shoot, light and capture images. But I am almost always less impressed with the broad specifics of "good footage" than I am with the use of "emotionally fitting" footage that helps convey the meaning and feeling of the film. Likewise I enjoy footage where the camera does the unexpected to mesh with the story. For example the Scifi channel's "Battlestar Galactica" remake and Fox's "24" both do a wonderful job of putting the viewer into the story despite often techinically untraditional usage of focus, zoom and movement.

For me a marriage of creative shooting, emotionally fitting music and cinematography along with believable acting talent make or break the film. And often it is the broken, untraditional elements that match the story perfectly and not the standard definitions of good film that deliver the impact and the lasting memories that make us so passionate about film.
 
Justin_Kirch said:
CWe all have different styles. My style is most definitely different from any of your styles. I love using short DOF in many of my shots, I just think it makes my art more pleasant considering the lack of equipment I have.

Gary basically has my idea. I just look at the whole frame, and most likely I don't like long DOF because it doesn't satisfy my work.
Click to expand...

How would you categorize your style then, Justin? I'm not even sure I could categorize my own; I'm guessing/assuming you are basing your assessment of my own style from my demo reel. Could you draw a comparison between our styles so I can understand what you mean? Could I look at something online that you have shot so that I can see what you like to do?

Regarding DoF, I love using shallow focus as well, where it seems appropriate (that's why I bought a Mini35, after all!) I just prefer to use it where I can, not at the expense of other factors (shooting dialogue telephoto sometimes can distance the audience from the scene, for instance).
 
Charles, I actually haven't looked at your reel. I was just saying in general that many people have different styles. Since I haven't seen any of your work, I wouldn't really know what to categorize mine under.

Unfortunately I don't have any footage up on the web. I've been wanting to get some up, but I don't have a host or even editing software for my computer yet. I'm a poor noob when it comes to editing. I shoot a lot of stuff but have nothing to capture on yet! I will have something soon I hope. Hopefully I can grab some screenies in the future and PM them to you?
 
Sure, send some stuff along. I was just curious how you were categorizing styles. As a DP one is generally called on to be as flexible as possible and create many different looks for different projects--I wouldn't personally say, for instance, that I prefer either a "deep" or "shallow" look in general, rather that I choose it based on the project, the format, and right down to the given shot.

I can well see how shallow DoF has become the Holy Grail of DV filmmakers, precisely because it is not easy to achieve, and it tends to make the images look "better". Something to do with the way that video resolves small details, and thus having the backgrounds blur out minimizes this. It's worth noting that in the 35mm world, where there is a often a choice of deep or shallow focus, that there is regular consideration to how this should be controlled on a per-shot basis. I may elect to add an ND9 to allow me to shoot a close-up at T2 on an exterior to create an isolated effect, or shoot it clean at 5.6 so that the character is more connected with their environment. Sometimes there may be a desire to shoot with extreme depth, say to connect a foreground and background character within a frame, which might require specialized approaches like split diopters , slant focus lenses or multiple exposures in combination with massive amounts of light to build up enough stop to afford a deep T-stop. All of which is instantly achievable on DV! Sometimes the grass is greener...

Here's a split diopter shot from "Million Dollar Baby", for instance:

http://www.the-hegemony.com/mdb.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top