What does footage on high end cameras look like with no lighting?

Azmyth said:
I always wondered if the higher end cameras had a magic "looks like a movie" setting that automatically gives it a "movie look" without doing anything other than pointing and shooting.

Also, if they are using reflectors to manipulate natural light.. they are still "lighting" the movie. I'm talking about picking up the camera, out of the box.. and shooting something with it.. what does it look like?
Click to expand...

They do not have a "magic movie setting."

You want to pull a handycam out of a bag and a Varicam out of a bag, point them both at the same unlit scene with no art direction and no attempt at making the natural existing light work and see what the difference is? In simple terms the higher end camera will most likely deliver a sharper picture with better color representation, more dynamic range, and the benefits of whatever (most likely) high end lens it is shooting through. It will look comparatively "better" but that does not mean it will look good objectively.
 
Brooksy said:
Film cameras are able to see something like up to 7 stops on both ends of the f-stop. I am not sure of the exact but it is something like that. Not even RED's can do that. So if you are using a film camera without lighting you still have the better chance of getting a great picture out of it.
Click to expand...

But high dynamic range is hardly the recipe for a cinematic look. Without correct placement of light to create contrast and mood all you'll get is a flat looking image where everything is properly exposed, which can still look amateurish. It's really not even about using "pro" light versus existing light or practicals. It's about taking the lights that are there and bending them to shape the image.
 
William_Robinette said:
They do not have a "magic movie setting."

You want to pull a handycam out of a bag and a Varicam out of a bag, point them both at the same unlit scene with no art direction and no attempt at making the natural existing light work and see what the difference is? In simple terms the higher end camera will most likely deliver a sharper picture with better color representation, more dynamic range, and the benefits of whatever (most likely) high end lens it is shooting through. It will look comparatively "better" but that does not mean it will look good objectively.
Click to expand...

Well, better sure.. but it won't look cinematic by just turning on the camera and pressing record.
 
Oh man this thread goes in so many directions...
Natural light is being used all the time in filmmaking. Whether we are talking about exteriors or interiors doesn't matter, for the interiors we bring in lights as the changing lighting conditions don't allow us to simply use natural light (like in that Megan Fox clip that uses photographer's approach - just a quick shot here with this light, then we move on for a quick shot over there, and there...this approach obviously doesn't work for narrative filmmaking as in narratives we are dealing with multiple takes from numerous angles so a simple scene can take a few hours to shoot - thus lighting would never match with photographer's approach).

We bring in the lights for 2 things: a.) continuous exposure b.) dramatic effect.

When we have access to lights but chose not to use them is a sign of many things: a.) artistic choice as sometimes the scene looks great as it is (again, like in that M. Fox clip) or the story is forcing the decision as sometimes the image is not about how hot it looks (this reveals how good we are as DPs as sometimes consciously we have to undercut ourselves and create sub par images only because the story calls for it); b.) lack of time as the scheduling issues force us to adapt run&gun approach for the rest of the day (this approach too reveal the most about what kind of DP we are as we are asked to create good images in adverse situation).
 
Huy Vu said:
The point is that it didn't look like it was shot on a RED. It looks like any prosumer 3 chips camera. Colorimetry, contrast, shot selection etc, none of that conveys the feeling that this was shot on a high end digital cinema camera at all. Looks completely video, as the definition goes.
Click to expand...

That's your personal opinion. To my eyes the clip looks great. Personally i might have picked up other angles and maybe beautify the images just a bit but that doesn't change the fact that the clip is very cinematic.
 
Barry_Green said:
Home videos.
Click to expand...

never, are you serious Barry? Ive seen stuff sht on 35mm film. exteriors, just sunlight and it doesnt look like home video even for a SECOND.
Lighting is not THAT important when you shooting on film,because it would always look like film.(unless dp screw something up)
With RED is about getting proper shutter speed because ive seen some good looking stuff shot on infinity and crappy looking stuff even with DOF wich doestn look like film (because of weird looking movement)and budget work.Just see universal soldier 3 trailer ,good example how to NOT shoot with RED camera.Looks like youtube home video on half of the shots.
 
Last edited:
bwwd said:
never, are you serious Barry? Ive seen stuff sht on 35mm film. exteriors, just sunlight and it doesnt look like home video even for a SECOND.
Lighting is not THAT important when you shooting on film,because it would always look like film.(unless dp screw something up)
Click to expand...

Well, "film" will always look like film (higher dynamic range, 24fps) but it can't look cinematic without lighting. Look at this film for example, shot entirely on 35mm film and it looks like crap.
 
bwwd said:
never, are you serious Barry? Ive seen stuff sht on 35mm film. exteriors, just sunlight and it doesnt look like home video even for a SECOND.
Click to expand...
Have you ever seen anyone's 8mm or Super8mm or 16mm home movies? There's millions of MILES of "home video" footage out there, where people used a film camera under sunlight and it all looks like home video (but with film-like motion).

Just having sunlight isn't enough, you have to know where to stand and what direction to shoot in order to get that "cinematic" look.

My point was -- if you shoot something that doesn't look good, using a better camera won't make it look any better. You have to have something good-looking to shoot. And that comes from composition, lighting, art direction, staging, and everything else. The actual camera used to record the footage is probably the least important of all those elements.
 
What about night time shooting?

Michael Mann has really pushed the envelope with available light using high end HD cams on COLLATERAL and MIAMI VICE.

In the scene at the end of COLLATERAL, in the high rise when the lights go out and Cruise is trying to kill Foxx and Pinkett, they shot that with no lights, just reflectors and the city lights shining in the windows.

Mann said when they turned all the lights off the HD cams could "see" far more detail than the human eye.

Try that with a DVX or HVX!!!!!!

I think that is what the original poster is getting at - using available light, especially at night, high end cams look FAR superior.
 
Barry_Green said:
My point was -- if you shoot something that doesn't look good, using a better camera won't make it look any better. You have to have something good-looking to shoot. And that comes from composition, lighting, art direction, staging, and everything else. The actual camera used to record the footage is probably the least important of all those elements.
Click to expand...


That was exactly the point of my posting Barry. We spent all day and thousands of dollars and could have rolled up in a van with our models and a "decent" camera and gotten almost the same results.

Right place, right time and knowing how to use what is laid before you cannot be underestimated. That said, I sure feel a lot more comfortable going into battle with a full armory.
 
The point of my post was based on an actor who wanted to know what I was shooting my film on. I told him, and he told me that he shot his film on the RED and started telling me how cheap rental prices were (not very cheap mind you). I told him that my budget wasn't going to be all blown on just the camera, and that it really mattered little. I looked up the trailer for the film he shot on the RED and it didn't look anything at all like I would have expected a RED film to look, and everything else that should have been good.. was terrible.. like lighting and audio. Meaning, he blew his whole budget on renting the camera. I would love to shoot on a higher end camera.. but at the end of the day the camera is just a brush, and it doesn't matter how fancy your brush is.. if you don't have any paint to paint with.. your going to have a pretty boring painting.
 
Azmyth,

You are dead on get a "good camera" and for Gods sake don't cut corners on lighting and sound. Speaking of sound, so few people realize the importance of good sound until it is bad, same with lighting.

Don't think for a minute that all the demo footage that Red shows was not lit with good equipment and well trained DP's and gaffers. Red is a lot of things, stupid is not one of them.
 
Barry_Green said:
Have you ever seen anyone's 8mm or Super8mm or 16mm home movies?
Click to expand...
Isnt it obvious that i talking about 35mm film ? Not super 16mm and definitely not 8mm.

Huy Vu said:
Well, "film" will always look like film (higher dynamic range, 24fps) but it can't look cinematic without lighting. Look at this film for example, shot entirely on 35mm film and it looks like crap.
Click to expand...

Yes it does but still doesnt look like video.But its close with its deep focus and dumb framing.
Camera is important ,you cant shoot with interlaced cam which you own ,are you kidding me.
And when you point 35mm film cam during daytime outside with no lights with 50mm lens to human being talking ,portrait framing and you will put your regular sony camcorder in the same distance and same framing then sony would look like shi* while 35mm footage would remind you of motion pictures because of DOF from 50mm lens and movement of actors face because of progressive frames and 1/48 shutter.

Here is quite random test with 35 film and it looks very cinematic from movement ,lights doesnt look impressive but it doesnt matter because movement looks like stuff i see in my TV all the time watching motion pictures
http://vimeo.com/1053239
When hes driving the car i dont see any lights out there helping to get cinematic look,and judging from movement it looks great like in motion pictures.Looks like cutted out from a movie.With no light setups.

HEre is super 16mm and it doesnt look as good but looks decent and ive seen super 16mm stuff which looks like 35mm and i know it can look better if you know what youre doing.
http://vimeo.com/645827

I dont see any light setups out there on exteriors but someone would probbly tell me that they used some ligts,i just dont believe that.Ligts can add mood and are important when you are inside but outside you can do many shots using just sunlight and move you actors where is enough light to see them perfectly.

This super 16mm looks like 35mm and its because of light i must admit
http://vimeo.com/7530604
Light helps but dont tell that without lights there is no cinematic look, bourne films are shot on exteriors mostly and they look cinematic ,bad weather everywhere not fancy hollywod backgrounds like in mission impossible or bonds ,looks really good and helps the story while doesnt look like video at all even if it looks so harsh and cold .Like world we see everyday outside.
 
Last edited:
bu thats very bad example of terrible DP on the set, how about the footage i gave with anamorphic tests on 35mm with no light setups
 
bwwd said:
Isnt it obvious that i talking about 35mm film ? Not super 16mm and definitely not 8mm.
Click to expand...

You can't have it both ways. 16mm and 35mm are made and cut from the same base material. There is nothing inherently different between them. Hell, even the 8mm Vision stock you can buy is from the same stuff your 35mm Vision stock is.

how about the footage i gave with anamorphic tests on 35mm with no light setups
Click to expand...

Looks like sh*t. And you cannot talk about difference between how 35mm handles motion differently form a video camera and then show an example of footage transferred at 15fps.
 
bwwd said:
bu thats very bad example of terrible DP on the set, how about the footage i gave with anamorphic tests on 35mm with no light setups
Click to expand...

Looks terrible, almost like a one of those Hi-8 camera. I can get the exact same result with a handicam.

Film has its own characteristic, but no way will it automatically looks good under any circumstances. DOF doesn't do a thing to make it look better, just because you got the background out of focus doesn't hide the lack of art design or flat lighting. Just look at the ton and tons of 35mm adapter footage out there with razor thin DOF.
 
William_Robinette said:
You can't have it both ways. 16mm and 35mm are made and cut from the same base material. There is nothing inherently different between them. Hell, even the 8mm Vision stock you can buy is from the same stuff your 35mm Vision stock is.



.
Click to expand...

This may seem so, but take the same stock in 16 and 35 expose it exactly the same and you will see a marked difference in contrast.
 
Watch "carnivale".

Looks like HD to me...

Turns out its panavision 35.....

The Color correction made it look very digital to me. ( on the DVD box set anyway.....)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top