Video sharp? Film.. not sharp?!

[Igelkott Film]

I hear the term to sharp for film-look.
And I have thought about that when I watch movies and I don't see that?

For exampel Knight and Day.

Insanely sharp. Looks like it all was filmed with Lumix 20mm f1.7

Or take lord of the rings which we all know i filmed on film.

Crazy sharp. Looks like the 20mm f1.7 and a 50mm f.2.

And the short DoF from film? Block busters looks like the lumix 20mm or less some times.

I know the super short DoF of House, or CSI and other TV series.

But not that much in the big films.

For me videoy look is short dynamic range, great DoF and critical focus on the wall behind the one your shooting.


Wouldn't we all like to see examples of the film look people want from actual films.
So please post. It makes it much easier to crack the film code with "this is what I want"- examples.

:happy:

 

[Ian-T]

I thought the same thing about "Night and Day." I would try and color correct to match what I seen in that movie. Looked like HD to me instead of traditional films. There was even some noisy night scenes that was worse than what I see on some of these DSLRs. For example...the scene where she was spying on Tom and the other woman in the resturaunt...very noisy. In general though I personally like that overused warm tone on skin etc. It reminds me of the Panasonic cameras.

 

[astigmatic]

sharp+contrasty is video. Harsh blown highlights and crushed blacks due to it's low dynamic range vs film-like which is low contrasty looking due to it's higher dynamic range.

So to cut down the video look you go lower contrast in the midtones and highlights toh emulate a wider dynamic range. Softer = smoother transitions between dark and light..or midtone and highlght.

 

[Stu Siegal]

Anyone remember when video look meant interlaced?

 

[eXe69]

I worked on knight and day and it was shot on film. There is a lot of post done on the negative once is scanned. Some of which includes dust and grain removal. I've also seen the film in theater and don't remember the grainy scene you're talking about so I can't comment on that.

I thought the same thing about "Night and Day." I would try and color correct to match what I seen in that movie. Looked like HD to me instead of traditional films. There was even some noisy night scenes that was worse than what I see on some of these DSLRs. For example...the scene where she was spying on Tom and the other woman in the resturaunt...very noisy. In general though I personally like that overused warm tone on skin etc. It reminds me of the Panasonic cameras.

 

[10s]

Too sharp to look like film? Someone might want check out Kodak Vision 3 and then tell me film can't be razor sharp. Film has many looks because there are many film stocks made to deliver a certain "look" besides the many ways to process it, light it and shoot it, etc.

Don't get stuck on what others say what's correct, think for yourself, be artisically sensitive about your craft and follow your own internal voice. I say it's best to simply go for the "look" you find fitting. In other words, it serves the story well. The "look" should help evoke an emotional response from the audience. This evocative eliciting "look" should emphasize the emotional thematic journey within the film, but it can also vary from scene to scene or sequence to sequence. You're the boss, it's your choice. Gaining mastery over what & how to use these "looks" can be a huge undertaking. That is something even old pros can struggle with. The challenge is for each of us to become the master of the many looks that we believe makes cinematic magic come alive on the big screen. Hopefuly you will make wise choices and we will be seduced by your wonderful magic, suspend disbelief and take a wonderful journey into your story.

 

[Igelkott Film]

Too sharp to look like film? Someone might want check out Kodak Vision 3 and then tell me film can't be razor sharp. Film has many looks because there are many film stocks made to deliver a certain "look" besides the many ways to process it, light it and shoot it, etc.

Don't get stuck on what others say what's correct, think for yourself, be artisically sensitive about your craft and follow your own internal voice. I say it's best to simply go for the "look" you find fitting. In other words, it serves the story well. The "look" should help evoke an emotional response from the audience. This evocative eliciting "look" should emphasize the emotional thematic journey within the film, but it can also vary from scene to scene or sequence to sequence. You're the boss, it's your choice. Gaining mastery over what & how to use these "looks" can be a huge undertaking. That is something even old pros can struggle with. The challenge is for each of us to become the master of the many looks that we believe makes cinematic magic come alive on the big screen. Hopefuly you will make wise choices and we will be seduced by your wonderful magic, suspend disbelief and take a wonderful journey into your story.

Masterly said!

And one other thing which I think is the real kicker:

Most you see filmed on video = bad or no lighting
Most you see filmed on film = god or pro lighting.

So I'm going with to light my scenes well when I can manage it.
Bring a bouncer or two when your filming on a sunny day for example.

 

[Matthew B]

Most you see filmed on video = bad or no lighting
Most you see filmed on film = god or pro lighting.

I think this is the key difference, when your spending all that money on film you want to make sure it looks right so you pay more attention to lighting and production values. But when your only paying a few thousand for your camera setup (DSLR's for instance) the no budget, ameturish approach of we don't need to light (the most frustrating phrase i hear way too often) becomes the approach. Lighting is what seperates the films with high production values to those not so professional films littering Youtube. Lighting in my opinion is the number one factor that creates the 'film look', not what camera/lenses/codec, good lighting is what seperates the pros from the hobbyists.

 

[Ian-T]

I worked on knight and day and it was shot on film. There is a lot of post done on the negative once is scanned. Some of which includes dust and grain removal. I've also seen the film in theater and don't remember the grainy scene you're talking about so I can't comment on that.

Thanks eXe69. I knew it was all film I guess I should have said I was suprised by how some of it looked no different than what I've seen in a lot of video/digital cinema footage. But you can tell it was shot on film especially from its soft yet detailed images. When I watch the downloaded trailer I can see similar type of noise in certain areas that reminded me of digital. I was pixel peeping in theaters and noticed it in the same scene. But I didn't find it distracting.

(To be exact it was when Cameran Diaz left the French hotel and was sneaking around in the dark alley and her face just enters into a light....noise everywhere. I first noticed in the trailer and then looked for it in theaters. Regardless I loved how this movie was graded.).

 

[Mark Smith]

Get a PL adapter, & throw some 40 year old film lenses on your AF & tell me what you see..... Not video-y at all from my experience..

Lenses have gotten sharper, more contrasty, greater flare resistance over the years in both the film and video world. The beauty of the AF is you can put almost any glass on it with the proper adapter, so go to it.

 

[Hywel]

I think we're finally moving beyond camera technology being a crippling limitation on how things look on screen, especially TV rather than cinema projection sized screens.

Genuine feature films are now shot on "video" technology. Manufacturers continue chipping away at all the technical limitations that could telegraph its origins: interlacing was the first to go (except for Sony who still seem to have a strange fetish for it...) then frame rates, then over- and under-cranking, now resolution, dynamic range and compression artefacts are being beaten into control too. But having a camera that can do all that doesn't make for cinematic images.

For sure the most important part of how your shots look on screen these days is what you are pointing the camera at. Great production design, great lighting and great script = a proper movie, even if it was shot digitally.

The most stimulating thing for me waiting for my AF100 is the realisation that I *HAVE* to step up my game on production design, lighting, sound, script, and talent... because if I don't, there's nowhere to hide.

Cheers, Hywel.

 

[TimurCivan]

For sure the most important part of how your shots look on screen these days is what you are pointing the camera at. Great production design, great lighting and great script = a proper movie, even if it was shot digitally.

The most stimulating thing for me waiting for my AF100 is the realisation that I *HAVE* to step up my game on production design, lighting, sound, script, and talent... because if I don't, there's nowhere to hide.

Cheers, Hywel.

Post of the month. +10

 

[Erik Olson]

Somewhere within the forum is a link to an outside article on the extensive remaster / grain removal done for the Lord of the Rings BluRay edition.

 

[Barry_Green]

For sure the most important part of how your shots look on screen these days is what you are pointing the camera at. Great production design, great lighting and great script = a proper movie, even if it was shot digitally.

The most stimulating thing for me waiting for my AF100 is the realisation that I *HAVE* to step up my game on production design, lighting, sound, script, and talent... because if I don't, there's nowhere to hide.

Post of the year. +100.

 

[G.P.]

Insanely sharp. Looks like it all was filmed with Lumix 20mm f1.7

I hate to say it but, if you're going to try to compare a $300 lens to a $50,000 lens, its just not going to happen. If you don't see the difference, doesn't mean others don't. If you can't tell what the film look is, my best answer to you is start working with film. You need to learn it to say if something has it or not.

I just see posts like this not being informative and more or less confusing the younger crowd into the understandings and look of film. "Knight and Day" WAS shot on film with Panavision cameras and lenses, and for you to say it didn't look that way, its just going to confuse people more.

The statement stands with regards to lighting, dof, coposition, movement, dynamic range, and so on... The thing is, thats a product of the film style to begin with. You CAN get something from an F35, 9000PL, F3, Alexa, RED, Dalsa, ect... to look like film, but its also because they have to ability to pull of the dof and dynamic range, that then helps with being able to add the composition, movement and lighting of film.

If the camera cannot reproduce what film did and didnt handle, its just not going to look like film. The is, theres more than just all of the above that has to deal with the "film look". There is an organicness to the picture. This does depend on film stock and processing though. "Knight and Day"s dailies uncorrected and right from the negative will show you the raw film look, that many of the films you can look at in the past had. Now they clean up the image in so many steps they remove a lot of what that look comes from. It's still there, but not as "raw" as it used to be.

For one to understand the "film look" you cant just look at one example and compare. You have to learn and study films, you need to watch in full resolution these works, and do this over and over again to train your eye into seeing the differences. You can't become a great wine taster over night, you have to taste every wine you can to understand the range. This is the same for film and the "film look". You cant just take 1 example and compare, you need to fully understand why, and how film looks the way it does. THEN compare and understand what video systems dont or do have thats similar.

 

[G.P.]

A perfect way to see this is action is the Indianan Jones series. Watch the first one, and then watch the 4th. They were both shot on film, but they look drastically different, even though they were trying for the same look in some scenes, and over feel of the first 3. They both have a "film look" but you need to understand theres more than just one actual look.

 

[John Caballero]

Film is SHARP, video is INTERLACED. Ultra shallow DOF, television; a more mixed shallow and deep focus, theatrical motion pictures. I have no idea why people can see that? It is there in front of your eyes. You don't have to be an expert to see it.

I hate to say it but, if you're going to try to compare a $300 lens to a $50,000 lens, its just not going to happen.

A $50,000 dollar improvement on the way the image will look? Sorry, but total fallacy.

 

[jburke14]

For one to understand the "film look" you cant just look at one example and compare. You have to learn and study films, you need to watch in full resolution these works, and do this over and over again to train your eye into seeing the differences. You can't become a great wine taster over night, you have to taste every wine you can to understand the range. This is the same for film and the "film look". You cant just take 1 example and compare, you need to fully understand why, and how film looks the way it does. THEN compare and understand what video systems dont or do have thats similar.

Are we making films for this kind of people? or are we making films for people who haven't 'trained their eyes over and over again' ? People don't care if your movie was shot on film, digital, etc... as long as the finished product is acceptable to the required audience. I don't know too many audiences that won't see a good work of cinematic art just because it gets shot on digital.

That being said obviously there are advantages to shooting film, and I would love to be able to do that on a daily basis. But in reality, what percentage of filmmakers, documentarians, commercial workers are working with film daily? Costs are the limiting factor. The Af100 might allow us to get closer to that look (when shot properly, lit well, and using good composition, acted well, etc) without spending 50,000 on a lens. I use Zeiss still primes, and they get a great picture for what I pay. It won't matter to anyone, if it has a slightly less dynamic range, IF it works to the audience. Maybe The 'trained' will stick up their noses, but if the audience doesn't care, nor do I...

 

[Igelkott Film]

For sure the most important part of how your shots look on screen these days is what you are pointing the camera at. Great production design, great lighting and great script = a proper movie, even if it was shot digitally.

The most stimulating thing for me waiting for my AF100 is the realisation that I *HAVE* to step up my game on production design, lighting, sound, script, and talent... because if I don't, there's nowhere to hide.

Cheers, Hywel.

Love it love it love it love it love it +1000

 

[G.P.]

Film is SHARP, video is INTERLACED. Ultra shallow DOF, television; a more mixed shallow and deep focus, theatrical motion pictures. I have no idea why people can see that? It is there in front of your eyes. You don't have to be an expert to see it.

A $50,000 dollar improvement on the way the image will look? Sorry, but total fallacy.

These two statements are exactly what I'm talking about, spreading around the fact that the "film look" is specific is not helping anyone, with your statement above, that means a DSLR should look exactly like film but it doesnt. I completely agree with you to the most part about "why cant you just see it, its right there in front of your eyes". There is a crowd out there that shoots interlaced and cant see the difference, and yes that frustrates me... BUT there is another level, the level of what I would call new guys who think that the quality of film look is only achieved by say a RED One setup. Sure it holds all of the qualities, and yes it can look like film... but theres one thing its missing, the organic grain of film. There is just something there that you can't replicate with any other device yet. The closest thing I can use as an example is the 35mm lens adapter guys. They say that its much more organic of a look when they shoot with their adapters than with a DSLR. And you know what, for the most part they are right, its introducing imperfections. Its the imperfections of film that make it what it is, but theres a fine line.

I see the 35mm adapter guys and for the most part, their eye is right. Its because all those lens elements thrown together with the vibrating glass grain just makes it something closer to a film look. I'm not saying its the same, but its a new bread of "organic" feel. Problem is you lose sharpness, resolution, and light with those adapters, and thats a little too much for most people wanting to shoot.

A sensor needs to be clean, but organic... There is something to be said of the Alexa camera, if you've ever had access to the prores4444 files and watched them on an hd monitor, you can see that there is a characteristic of the camera a little nicer than RED when it comes to comparison to film... Theres just a little something about it, that has a feel. A lot of people can't tell though. I'm not talking about large differences, im talking about the smaller ones; the ones that need to know what you're looking for in order to understand what you're seeing.

And to your second statement about the lens, again... Just because YOU can't tell the difference doesn't mean others cant. I'm a lens geek, and most big DP's know their lenses and their looks. Its the same way you can tell the "Cooke look" from other lenses. I have a feeling if you looked at something shot with Cooke lenses and then compare to another, you'd not be able to tell. But that doesn't mean others cant tell.

Learning "well thats good enough for me" is fine, but when you start teaching everyone like that, you end up killing off or even preventing the people who would otherwise investigate deeper and learn the full quality of lenses.

Are we making films for this kind of people? or are we making films for people who haven't 'trained their eyes over and over again' ? People don't care if your movie was shot on film, digital, etc... as long as the finished product is acceptable to the required audience. I don't know too many audiences that won't see a good work of cinematic art just because it gets shot on digital.

If films were only shot for the public, they would all be crap reality shows. TV fell into that trap. DPs don't shoot and light for the audience.. They light and shoot for themselves. And any one who says different is just lying. You're looking threw the viewfinder to please yourself, and the director. You're lighting to build your craft and make something beautiful, you are pleasing YOUR eye. There isn't an audience sitting behind you making decisions. Great DP's break rules and invent all new ones that work visually, but I have never in a million years heard of a professional DP shooting for the audience, sure they are shooting for the audiences sake of enjoying the film, by the are sure NOT sitting there picking there lenses thinking 'hmm I wonder if the audence will like the Cooke S4/i's over the Ultraprimes... No. Thats a decision of creativity from the DP.

DP's are painters with light. they are artists, they create something for people to view yes, but they aren't influenced by the audience as much as they are influenced by what their own image is in their head. Its their creative pallet.

The world is NOT full of great creative people, and thats why some rise above others. The audiences come to see great work. If you gave that theater audience a voting system to let them be the DP's collectively, the film wouldn't come out the way a great DP would do it. Its the DP's job to tell the story in which HE/S sees it, or the Director sees it.