The movie/cinema look- Please debate and discuss...give your opinions!

P

pulpfiction007

Veteran
All the new gear coming out recently, the shallow dof look being readily available to the masses and the buzz of 4k got me to thinking - Which factors contribute the most to giving a lower budget narrative project a movie/cinema look. Is it the camera? Is it the ever popular background blur? Is it the brilliant camera moves? Sound? Of course...it is all these things and many many more...but where do they rank in your mind? (We'll also go with the assumption that story is king and a good cast/crew is essential to delivering that story) Here is my list....

1. Lighting and basic composition - So important in how images come across....the mood and the feel begin here.
2. Sound/Music - Good sound and a complimentary sound track are key to moving images morphing into what we know as a movie.
3. Composition to compliment pace - The choice of stylized shots can often make or break a project...to use or not to use.
4. The edit - A project may either shine or dwindle in this shaping of content...to keep or not to keep.
5. Color grading and post work - Like the mix of a song, when a movie truly becomes a movie.
6. Choice of camera - MOST modern cameras are good enough, basically beginning with the ole DVX - At the lower budget level Pre DVX, video just screamed VIDEO!!
Now days, that isn't the case with many great cameras available and fairly cheap editing systems for a person to deliver quality visuals.
I think the key camera wise to delivering an end product that will be cinematic ultimately, is to choose the right tool for the job at hand...know your project. (meaning a lot of action and movement might lead you to choose an older 3 CCD camera, or a lot of low light and interiors might send you to DSLRS or an AF100, FS100 and other things might lead a person higher to F3/Red/C300 territory - all of course depending on budget)

In the end I truly believe that resolution, sensors and bits are the LAST piece of the puzzle....even including the all hailed shallow dof look. They might be the cream and the sweetener....but they are not what makes a cup o coffee
 
Last edited:
watched humpday recently - great story - very good acting - couldn't tell you what it looked like after the first screening.
 
I would say it's one thing that you didn't include in your list - production design.
There is a great thread somewhere where this was discussed in the past, and I believe it was Timur who posted stills of many examples to illustrate the importance and impact of production design.
 
Why go for a "film look" at all if you're not shooting on film?

If you have a story to tell which is best told via a small handheld camera with shallow DOF, tight closeups and "indie" looking production design and natural light, you use a DSLR. Lots of stories benefit from being told that way.

If you want to tell a more classically cinematical film, why not shoot it on film? If you fake something, it's not going to look 100% accurate anyway.

If you don't have the budget for that, then tell the sort of story you have the budget for telling and save the others until you can afford something else.

I'm just saying run with what you have and don't be ashamed of it. Make a thing out of it instead.
 
Why go for a "film look" at all if you're not shooting on film?
Click to expand...

This is a good point. The supposed huge cost difference, isn't really that much of an issue, unless you're shooting something that needs a lot of coverage. It's been possible for a while to get good deals on stock. I don't really see much point in spending days on end, post processing footage to emulate film stock, when you could just go out and shoot the real thing and be done in half the time.

Having said that, I've seen plenty of films shot on 16mm and 35mm that looked like ****. So film isn't by default, cinematic. That comes from the many elements, well combined by craftsman. I think film will remain on the "important ingredient to use" list for a while though.
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
Why go for a "film look" at all if you're not shooting on film?

If you have a story to tell which is best told via a small handheld camera with shallow DOF, tight closeups and "indie" looking production design and natural light, you use a DSLR. Lots of stories benefit from being told that way.

If you want to tell a more classically cinematical film, why not shoot it on film? If you fake something, it's not going to look 100% accurate anyway.

If you don't have the budget for that, then tell the sort of story you have the budget for telling and save the others until you can afford something else.

I'm just saying run with what you have and don't be ashamed of it. Make a thing out of it instead.
Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying...use what is best for the story,...however, I was careful in the title not to say the "film" look. I am talking about the "movie look"....whether digital or film, MOVIES have all have certain elements that make them look and feel like MOVIES. For instance, a lot of recent movies have been shot digital, yet they still capture the audience just as film would...most of the public wouldn't know the difference...so it's not a film vs video thing.
It's more of a discussion on which elements make a movie come to life as a MOVIE and not just a series of scenes. I definitely agree on the spirit of what you are saying budget wise.....I think knowing what is possible with the budget one has is VERY important.
 
Luis Caffesse said:
I would say it's one thing that you didn't include in your list - production design.
There is a great thread somewhere where this was discussed in the past, and I believe it was Timur who posted stills of many examples to illustrate the importance and impact of production design.
Click to expand...

Yes. Plus, I occasionally use a couple of pics to show the same thing:

attachment.php


vs.

attachment.php


Or, more recently:

attachment.php
 
that pic also illustrates the importance of lighting. One other thing that I see as important is lens choice...making conscious and consistent choices of focal length. Also focus pulls...they can be very effective in drawing the viewers attention, but a lens that breathes during a focus pull can be very distracting. Cheap zoom lenses breathe like crazy during focus pulls.
 
If you want to tell a more classically cinematical film, why not shoot it on film? If you fake something, it's not going to look 100% accurate anyway.
Click to expand...

Probably because it's prohibitively expensive and unnecessarily cumbersome to do so. Additionally, you can create any filmic look you want using quality digital tools operated by talented individuals, for a fraction of the cost and with all the extra inherent benefits.
 
1) Production Design AND Lighting (equal in my book as they compliment each other)

2) Sound (close second)

3) Everything else


Unfortunately for a lot of newbies here's a typical list from the films I've seen.

1) short DOF

2) Color grading

3) ???

Somewhere around #20 is sound, if it's even on the list.
 
Thank you for the responses so far...I hope some new to the game or lost in gear obsession will read this thread! I like gear too...but I had to snap myself out of it! lol
 
pulpfiction007 said:
Thank you for the responses so far...I hope some new to the game or lost in gear obsession will read this thread! I like gear too...but I had to snap myself out of it! lol
Click to expand...

Congrats! It's important to get past this stage. I was obsessed with this for a short time, but then I fell in love with lighting and realized how it did what I thought cameras should have done. Realizing lighting was one of the most important factors, made me almost care absolutely nothing about what camera I was working with. If it records, let's just make it look good.

Now I'm at the production design stage. On my current film I'm trying to find a really good Art Director (had one, but didn't work out, now testing out another) and really working on the look of the whole piece.
 
Yeah, the lighting thing hit me like a brick with doing photos and trying to achieve a certain mood.... it's the same with pictures in motion. Good luck on your project!
 
Here's a radical idea: the cinema look is about the cinema experience, or basically that you are watching a movie.

My hair-brained and arguably adolescent theory is that if you are telling a story with a very discernible tone and most of the sixty-minute-plus venture is composed properly (disregarding light), you will be close enough to "cinema" to pass.

Want an award-winning and easy to find example? PRIMER.
 
OH and audio, of course. Decent audio, soundtrack, score, etc.

A score can change the entire perception of a scene.
 
Nothing says cinema more than the cigarette burn in the upper right corner of the frame that foreshadows a reel change. Add a few of those and you're golden. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top