Ways to simulate film look

D

David Evans

Well-known member
Hi,

I know this is a question that envolves a lot of things, such as lighting, framing, shooting, etc. But I've seen videos shot by different people with the same gear, and some of them looked very cinematic and had that cinematic feel, while others never lost the video look, despite of being very well shot.

In your opinion, what's the most important part of the process for creating the illusion of the film image? Besides shooting 25p and light up the scenes well. I feel that it's easier to "fool" someone with an indoor scene, with low light, than outdoors. Outdoors I usually find most videos I see to be very video-like. But I do find some that can fool me and seem like they are professional films. And they were shot with Canon XH A1 and similar cameras. What is, in your opinion, the most important part of this process? The post? What kind of work can be done in post to simulate the illusion of film? It's just that I think it's not really the quality of the image, it's something else, a sort of filter that creates that illusion in the image and differentiates the video from the film.

Please share your experience and the way you give cinematic look to your movies :-)

Thanks

David
 
If you would like to offer an example of a certain film, I would be more than glad to help you... but considering that films shot on film have extremely different looks from each other, you are asking a loaded question with subjective answers.

My best answer without any fluff is this:

Most likely the films that looked more "cinematic" had a DP who is talented and better knows how to control a medium. He/she not only had the technical talent to properly expose, but to also make up for the difference of viewable contrast between our eyes and the recording medium. Then he/she had the creative talent to make the choices of how to light based on story telling and mood.

This is not film like, but just talented and professional job well done.


Some will say shallow depth of field, and resolution, etc are keys to filmic look. True in some ways but I have seen films with deep DoF and shi*ty resolution. The point is, if we can live in a world where Citizen Kane, Days of Heaven, Se7en, The Godfather, LOTR, Dude Where's My Car, Fear and Loathing, Mean Girls, Harold and Kumar, etc are ALL shot on film (Harold and Kumar / The Dark Knight shot on the same film stock w/ exception of IMAX) you can see that it is really the artistic hand and creative choices which craft a films look. And there are many many looks. In the end the successful film looks are those which help tell the story, set mood and etc.
 
Knowing what it means to "Paint" with light, great sound, good framing/angles, acting, art direction/location, editing, colour correction....

Basically every aspect of the film should be done a certain way for a reason.. Not just filming "real life", everything in your film, whether it's a light, a chair, a line in your script, etc. Should be there for a reason, to help tell the story in a way that is pleasing for the audience to watch. All of this and more, will help add production value to a film, and not necessarily mean you need a big budget to get that elusive "film" look.

Someone could write a 1000 page book on this topic and probably still wouldn't be able to cover everything you'd need to get the look you're talking about. I think it comes from practice and experience. (coming from someone that needs a lot of that haha) I've just begun to realise what's involved in getting the "film" look beyond the technical aspects of it.
 
For me DOF is what distinguishes film from video. But like already said it is a combination of everything.

If you have a DOF adapter your off to a good start.
 
Have you seen 24 lately? Many of the outdoor scenes looks nothing like film and that show is shot on film. Many night exterior looks like it's lit juts by existing sodium vapor lamps and some of the day scenes are shot in areas of heavily contrasty shadow and sunlight which usually is a big no no. Nobody really cares.
 
There is no substitute for intelligent and thoughtful practice over time. In today's gotta know fast, what's the quick recipe for (fill in any subject here) generation, it's something you have to develop the brain connections for.

Its like a sport, you can read all about how it works but you can't develop any skill without spending thousands and thousands of hours practicing and working with established ideas plus a bunch of your own. That is THE secret to simulating "the film look".
 
As has been mentioned before. First and foremost in getting a close to film look is 24frames progressive. Narrow depth of field is achieved in video shoots also so that's not really "film look".

And great DPs give a great look on video as well as film.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Some will say shallow depth of field, and resolution, etc are keys to filmic look. True in some ways but I have seen films with deep DoF and shi*ty resolution. The point is, if we can live in a world where Citizen Kane, Days of Heaven, Se7en, The Godfather, LOTR, Dude Where's My Car, Fear and Loathing, Mean Girls, Harold and Kumar, etc are ALL shot on film (Harold and Kumar / The Dark Knight shot on the same film stock w/ exception of IMAX) you can see that it is really the artistic hand and creative choices which craft a films look. And there are many many looks. In the end the successful film looks are those which help tell the story, set mood and etc.
Click to expand...

For me the single most 'telling' attribute of a 'movie' as to whether it was 'digital' vs. 'film', has to do with lighthing.

In the olden days of 'video', because of the response of the analog tube, and the various requirements of 'broadcast' signals, 'video' was almost always lit 'flat'. Further as a note, most TV shows are dialog heavy, shot on a some what 'single' take basis, the use of multiple cameras was (is) still the standard. Hence, various changes in lighting for a shot and its reverse, to capture a 'two shot' scene, was not present.

In film, there is a good chance that the lighting was changed during the setup for the reverse shots, and as such lead to subtle differences beyond just the 'flat' lighting.

I think 'digital' video has suffered for years under the weight of having to match 'video', ranging from such idiocies as 'non-square' pixels, to how the sensor response was 'conditioned'.

So, back to my point... lighting for 'dramatic' presentation, seems to be the item that many people 'fail' to get when starting... or in my case, haven't had the opportunity to be able to take the time to setup the set, run tests, and get control of the lighting situation...

From my still imaging days, I tend to have a deeper DoF than even most 'modern' still photographers (as in like f/32 f/64, or using a view camera with swings and tilts... ok... for 35mm I tend to shoot around f/8... and only go down to f/5.6 or lower only when the light is so low that I can't hold the camera steady at 1/8 sec...)... So, getting a special add on assembly for my digital movie camera, is for me, not particularlly desireable.

The other idea that I've been experimenting with is 'color'. The short that I shot for the film class I took last fall, I conceived and presented in 'monochrome', aka B&W. I used the channel math feature to get something other than a 'desat+contrast-boost" monochrome that some people try. One of the respones not only from the instructor but other's I've shown it to, was 'gee B&W, how different'...

So, good dramatic lighting, keeping within the limits of the digital sensor technology of the camera, presentation in B&W... and just tell people you shot it on super 16mm...
 
Well, just to ilustrate what I'm saying, here are three examples. The first video was shot with no adapters, no artificial lighting, just good CC. And for my eyes, it has absolute movie feel. The second video was shot with SGPro so it has a more organic feel, at least to my taste and I like it a lot. The third video I also found on youtube and looks like video (shot with the same Canon XHA1 at 24f), of course from the way it's shot and with no CC. But my main interest is finding the main differences between videos and find the key points to turn the video into film. Here are the links I found:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ-Slj_oxzc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OSS6Q6w66A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMolxncfQ9g
 
David Evans said:
But my main interest is finding the main differences between videos and find the key points to turn the video into film. Here are the links I found:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMolxncfQ9g
Click to expand...

It's pretty simple if you look at all 3.

#1: It's obvious that this was shot just before sunset, so the lights are nice and soft on the subject's face and gives that nice warm look while keeping the overall contrast ratio of the scene within the camera's range. The subjects are also facing away from the sun (using it as a backlight) or let the sun hitting them at an angle (as a side/key light) so that lends dimension to the shot. That's all there is to it and that's what makes it so filmlike (although the subject's skin tone is too warm for my taste). The lesson: shoot during magic hour.

#2: This looks a lot less film like for the same reason as above. It's shot at a time when the sunlight is coming down very harshly so there's a high degree of contrast between the shaded area and the sunlit areas. The subject is in the shade so when you exposed for that, you end up with really hot, but not quote blown out BG. The harsh transition makes it looks like video. Note how much better it looks at around :58 when both of them are in the shade and the background is properly exposed. This has nothing to do with DOF.

#3: This one looks nothing like film for the same reason I've been mentioning. It's not properly exposed, the subject is poorly placed to take advantage of the light and the limited dynamic range of the camera is on full display here.

So that's basically it, the whole secret. There's really no magic formula, no button that can be pushed that give that filmlook. You're just gonna have to shoot at the right time and position your actors the right way.
 
no offense David, but i can make my camera phone look like film on youtube. my basic rule of thumb when it comes to mimicking film are:
1. shallow DoF
2. picture/scene profile/settings; ie: Gamma curves. just tweak your image. you're an artist.
3. and as always: lighting, lighting, lighting.
 
I know lighting is a very important part of filmmaking and adds much more depth and interest to the image. I was wondering if any knew of any good dvd or book (I'd prefer dvd because of ilustrations) that has good tutorials and teachings about lighting for film. Nowadays, if one wants to make an independent film (at least me) we have to do almost everything by ourselves, so I want to learn more about lighting. Please, share your references and dvds you think have good tutorials and info on lighting (for film, not tv).
Thanks
David
 
craigbowman said:
There is no substitute for intelligent and thoughtful practice over time. In today's gotta know fast, what's the quick recipe for (fill in any subject here) generation, it's something you have to develop the brain connections for.

Its like a sport, you can read all about how it works but you can't develop any skill without spending thousands and thousands of hours practicing and working with established ideas plus a bunch of your own. That is THE secret to simulating "the film look".
Click to expand...
yeah I know exactly what u mean about the gotta know fast thing. Everyone always asks me, can you tell me how to do what you do? And i'm always like, I can't just tell you and you'll know, it takes a lot of practice and experience. =/.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top