What makes a film look like a film?

M

mr_goodbomb

Active member
Aside from depth of field, what makes the viewer see a movie and think "this is a movie" as opposed to "this is a documentary/shot on DV?" I've seen a few low-budget movies where I can certainly tell they're using DV and it looks much more like the sort of camerawork that would go with documentary or found footage. Aside from depth of field, and using a tripod, what makes a movie look like a movie?
 
mr_goodbomb said:
Aside from depth of field, what makes the viewer see a movie and think "this is a movie" as opposed to "this is a documentary/shot on DV?" I've seen a few low-budget movies where I can certainly tell they're using DV and it looks much more like the sort of camerawork that would go with documentary or found footage. Aside from depth of field, and using a tripod, what makes a movie look like a movie?
Click to expand...

From the 'macro' level lighting, framing, set/costume design, makeup, acting, image presentation, and a few other things that escape me at the moment.

On a microscopic level... noise... in film chunks of 'color', dependent on the original silver halide grains being present in the material, flickering. Resolution in a certain sense... one of the problems that has been 'seen' is the fact that in the olden days, a number of generations of copies was required to go from original camera negative, to projection print seen in theaters. With digital, one can conceivibly go from 'original' to 'presentation', with no intervening loss due the interneg process.
There's loss from compression in most prosumer cameras have, and there are certain specific tasks that have less 'quality', like chromakeying for the lower resolution cameras.

There are certain things about 'film' I want to emulate... the 'macro' level items. The 'micro' level items are of much less concern to me in making films.
 
Also, the dynamic range (also known as 'latitude') of the cameras used has an impact on the image quality. It's especially noticeable in the skin tones and in scenes of high contrast.
 
I wouldn't even include depth of field as one of the things that makes film look like film. I'd say when HD first started its rise in the film industry, audiences weren't really suited to its unnatural sharpness, vs. the softness of film. But today, audiences are seeing more and more movies shot in HD, and the majority of major television shows have chosen to shoot digitally given the post production workflow. In my experience, they're getting used to it - you can have mostly deep focus shots and as long as the story and/or performance is good audiences are not going to notice.

I think the two biggest factors in making a movie look like a movie are lighting and aspect ratio. Yes, I said it. Aspect ratio. For me as a cinematographer, something FEELS more cinematic in 2.35 or 2.40 as opposed to 16x9 (which is 1.77, I think). But in reality there are lots of pieces to a movie that have to be done right in order to get the final project looking like it's a movie. I said the two most important are lighting and aspect ratio (and I'm biased, being a cinematographer) but you should know that good production design is very important as well. A motivated dolly move at the right time is very cinematic to me too.
 
Finnegan said:
I think the two biggest factors in making a movie look like a movie are lighting and aspect ratio. Yes, I said it. Aspect ratio. For me as a cinematographer, something FEELS more cinematic in 2.35 or 2.40 as opposed to 16x9 (which is 1.77, I think)..
Click to expand...

There is no sacredness about aspect ratio. Films have been made in a large number of ratios, with 4:3 being 'the Standard' until the 50's, and 1.66:1, 1.85:1, and 2.35:1 being the most popular for films, until the 'digital revolution'... of 1.78:1... aka 16:9...

In my mind the aspect ratio really has to be 'story driven'. If you have an 'intimate', 'interior predominant' film... having a 2.35:1 frame, is going to result in small heads, or even smaller bodies+heads, with vast expanses of walls, chairs, tables, couches, or other set elements... Even exteriors with 2.35:1 is going to accentuate 'smallness', if the exterior is a city environment.

Of the 5 'best picture' nominees that I saw in a marathon at the AMC theaters over the weekend, none had 2.35:1... 4 were 1.85:1, and one, "Avatar", was 1.78:1, at least according to their IMDB specs...
 
I'd also go along with the depth of field fallacy. Sure, in some movies narrow DOF is used as an effect, but movies look like movies and always have. I'm old enough to remember film clubs and 16mm copies of the big films. These were not 35mm image quality, they tender to jitter - especially in poorly maintained projectors and were not very bright - making images a little murky compared to 35mm - BUT they still looked like movies. However, there was usually a short shown, and these were frequently 'art' films shot by enthusiasts again on 16mm, using the same film stock - but these just didn't look the same. Hand held footage, weak or simply poor composition, lower quality audio, and sometimes even poorer editing all contribute to the non-movie impression.

Proper movies have every shot planned, every camera position and move carefully set up. Each actor has each shot organised so they have real direction. Every lighting fixture is chosen, positioned and focused to do exactly what the DoP wants. Every costume has been selected to emphasise it's strengths. Every prop and scenic item has been placed and managed properly.

The capture format is perhaps not so important as we think it is. A shot set up taking the things above in account will look good shot on a consumer camera or a Panavision. There are obviously technical differences, but movies looked like movies when we watched them on VHS and Betamax - it's what's in them that counts.
 
paulears said:
The capture format is perhaps not so important as we think it is. A shot set up taking the things above in account will look good shot on a consumer camera or a Panavision. There are obviously technical differences, but movies looked like movies when we watched them on VHS and Betamax - it's what's in them that counts.
Click to expand...


I think all paintings that do not have a 'golden mean' ratio should be burned, and let's be even more specific, longer width than height, and the museums that had them on display, torn down... how can they call it 'art' if it doesn't have an 'art frame aspect ratio'...

And while we're at it, strictly academy strokes... no frivelous individual innovations... strictly academy...
 
sound, and 180 degree shutter. More than anything the performance, but technically, 24 fps/25 fps, and I'm voting for the shutter, and the sound.

Lift shadows jest a bit... it does something nice. Desaturate, light light light light when you shoot, and plan for the shots to come out the way you want.

Actors.

These are all the things I am still trying my hardest to hook up without missing. The shutter is religion on our set now. We are NEVER allowed to change past 180 degrees, ie 50 for 25fps (pal land here).

Cheers all
 
What makes a film look like a film?

In my experience, the things that make a film look like a film are, in no particular order:
Macgregor
Vincent Pascoe
Timur Civan
Levie Isaacks, ASC
Patrick Kerby
Jay Nemeth

Give any of 'em a palmcorder and they'll make something that looks like a movie. Give any of them a Red and they'll make something that looks like a movie.

It's not just lighting. It's about knowing what to point the camera at, how to frame and compose it, how to light it, how to stage it, how to compose for image balance and color balance and depth, and shooting it in such a way as the end result looks and feels cinematic.

For camera hardware you want 24fps progressive capture, and the ability to control the depth of field of focus. Shutter is a factor but isn't hugely important; I've got film cameras with shutters that range from 1/43 to 1/60th of a second and it all looks like film; just don't go outside that range and you'll be okay. Ideally your camera should have a cinematic gamma curve too; standard video gamma doesn't look very filmish at all. And whatever you shoot, you'll probably finish with a color grade to get it that last extra step towards a film feel.
 
Barry_Green said:
It's not just lighting. It's about knowing what to point the camera at, how to frame and compose it, how to light it, how to stage it, how to compose for image balance and color balance and depth, and shooting it in such a way as the end result looks and feels cinematic.
Click to expand...

Yup. That's why $2.- HD cameras aren't a big deal. Art always comes down to talent.
 
I've seen people shoot crap with the same setup I have, or even better setups....I've seen 35mm shots that I thought looked too much like video because lighting was amateurish and they were just "faking" everything. Barry hits the nail.

Also yes sound plays such an important role, you'd be surprised how much we pay attention to sound even if we don't know it....
 
mr_goodbomb said:
Aside from depth of field, what makes the viewer see a movie and think "this is a movie" as opposed to "this is a documentary/shot on DV?" I've seen a few low-budget movies where I can certainly tell they're using DV and it looks much more like the sort of camerawork that would go with documentary or found footage. Aside from depth of field, and using a tripod, what makes a movie look like a movie?
Click to expand...

Films like 28 Days Later and Pieces of April tell me I'm watching a film despite bing shot on DV

It's the audio and the talent more than anything. For me.
 
Barry_Green said:
What makes a film look like a film?

In my experience, the things that make a film look like a film are, in no particular order:
Macgregor
Vincent Pascoe
Timur Civan
Levie Isaacks, ASC
Patrick Kerby
Jay Nemeth
Click to expand...

+1 and shot on film.

One of these days we will have to get a little group of dvxusers to all pitch in $100ish for film stock and processing and make a fun indie short or movie!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top