What makes a "Film?"
- Thread starter Future user
- Start date
I've never understood the shallow DOF obsession. I mean, it's a nice tool, and I like an effective rack focus as much as the next guy, but really -- what's the what?
Rick Meyer
Veteran
David Jimerson said:
I agree. I think if it used properly, it can look pretty, and it does a great job of isolating a particular part of the shot that you want the main focus to be on, but it does seem to border on obsession. I mean, Orsen Welles, "Citizen Kane" hello? He was pat on the back for NOT having a shallow depth of field. But, he was a great story teller.
Go figure.
Rick
Sirius_Doggy
Veteran
rlm7189 said:
That's not always the case. I just watched the original King Kong on AMC yesterday. The original 1932 or 33 version. Sounded like a crappy scratchy LP, (that's an old analog recording method for you kids. :grin: ), but I couldn't stop watching it. Same goes for any of the old B&W classics. Audio usually sucks.
But I do understand where you are coming from. Imagine watching a movie like LOTR with subtitles on and sound off. That would suck.
MattC
Veteran
Lighting with the 5 Cs.
FILMS (when at their best) are three dimensional. This is (I think) achieved through lighting and composition. Although I do think shows like Law and Order and Battlestar Galactica do an amazing job with this given the confines of doing a weekly series. And yes, I would think if you have more time and money (resources) you will get a better result.
Matt
FILMS (when at their best) are three dimensional. This is (I think) achieved through lighting and composition. Although I do think shows like Law and Order and Battlestar Galactica do an amazing job with this given the confines of doing a weekly series. And yes, I would think if you have more time and money (resources) you will get a better result.
Matt
Future user
Well-known member
I strung together a couple of minutes of clips in no particular way and then changed only the music. I didn't painstakingly pace the cuts to the music either. Just stuck some sound behind my pictures. TOTALLY different feel!
So, perhaps the music and the background (Law and Order always has street noise behind the courtroom scenes) noise is just as important as the image in creating the mood of "film."
Originally I was interested in capturing the "texture" of film. If you look in the out of focus spaces in a film frame, there is a certain "texture." It was this I originally sought to define. Maybe it is, in the end, the result of shooting on film.
So, perhaps the music and the background (Law and Order always has street noise behind the courtroom scenes) noise is just as important as the image in creating the mood of "film."
Originally I was interested in capturing the "texture" of film. If you look in the out of focus spaces in a film frame, there is a certain "texture." It was this I originally sought to define. Maybe it is, in the end, the result of shooting on film.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
MattC and Sirius
I'm right there with you; although I am a huge junkie for sound design and support it; I have seen old school hollywodd films that still captivate me without elaborate sound quality.
And Matt? Yes yes yes! Creating that 3rd dimension through lighting and compostion! Yes yes yes!
Thats it!
I'm right there with you; although I am a huge junkie for sound design and support it; I have seen old school hollywodd films that still captivate me without elaborate sound quality.
And Matt? Yes yes yes! Creating that 3rd dimension through lighting and compostion! Yes yes yes!
Thats it!
MattC
Veteran
Thanks John!
I find shallow DOF for it's own sake boring as it is often used to try and create that third dimension - but it still looks rather flat to me. Especially if it's TOO shallow, which sometimes looks artificial. But, yes, I like it as much as the next person, I just think to really create three dimensions you need light and shadows.
Citizen Kane was a good call. You can also look at ANY film noir, as deep focus was one of the hallmarks of that genre. They still look three dimensional.
I find it somewhat amusing that this began by folks assuming that the TV stuff was shot on video. This is why I've stopped obsessing over "film look" or at least as it is defined by everyone else. We all have an idea about what makes something look filmish and that's what we shoot for. But apparently, even shooting on actual FILM doesn't satisfy everyone here! LOL!!!!
And I agree with color grading, I think that adds to the dimensional nature of the image.
Matt
I find shallow DOF for it's own sake boring as it is often used to try and create that third dimension - but it still looks rather flat to me. Especially if it's TOO shallow, which sometimes looks artificial. But, yes, I like it as much as the next person, I just think to really create three dimensions you need light and shadows.
Citizen Kane was a good call. You can also look at ANY film noir, as deep focus was one of the hallmarks of that genre. They still look three dimensional.
I find it somewhat amusing that this began by folks assuming that the TV stuff was shot on video. This is why I've stopped obsessing over "film look" or at least as it is defined by everyone else. We all have an idea about what makes something look filmish and that's what we shoot for. But apparently, even shooting on actual FILM doesn't satisfy everyone here! LOL!!!!
And I agree with color grading, I think that adds to the dimensional nature of the image.
Matt
Ralph Oshiro
Veteran
I agree with John . . . in addition to more dolly shots, a big differentiating factor is ASPECT RATIO. Framing is much more asymmetric in 35mm film's 1.85/2.35 aspect ratios than in TV's wimpy 1.33/1.78 aspect ratios.
I also agree with RLM's hard-fought point. The compacted story arc, forced upon the medium of episodic TV, constrains the creators from including a lot more cinematic elements. For example, episodic TV has far more overly-long, single/two-shot, two-people-talking-in-a-room kinda coverage than in features. Features have more money and time to tell the story more visually.
I also agree with RLM's hard-fought point. The compacted story arc, forced upon the medium of episodic TV, constrains the creators from including a lot more cinematic elements. For example, episodic TV has far more overly-long, single/two-shot, two-people-talking-in-a-room kinda coverage than in features. Features have more money and time to tell the story more visually.
Ralph Oshiro
Veteran
I admit, I'm a HUGE shallow depth-of-field fan. However, I did appreciate the ultra deep-focus technique employed in Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey.rlm7189 said:
monte
Bag of Douche
I disagree Matt, I find film Noir to look incredibly dull and flat.
The lighting is obnoxious, everything is constantly in focus
"Oooh look shadows!!!!"
Who gives a flying ****, I hate shadows - Film noir is the only genre where the lighting and the characters match (in that they're both one dimensional)
I think film look can be achieved quite simply:
Using film lenses - I like the way the look, regardless of depth of field
Lighting "correctly" (I know that is a bit vague, as people define correctly differently based on the project and circumstances)
Good Color Correction
Shot Composition
24 FPS
Oh and ofcourse if there's any night scenes out on the streets/sidewalks, make sure to slick the streets with water, because it just rained for some reason. Always.
The lighting is obnoxious, everything is constantly in focus
"Oooh look shadows!!!!"
Who gives a flying ****, I hate shadows - Film noir is the only genre where the lighting and the characters match (in that they're both one dimensional)
I think film look can be achieved quite simply:
Using film lenses - I like the way the look, regardless of depth of field
Lighting "correctly" (I know that is a bit vague, as people define correctly differently based on the project and circumstances)
Good Color Correction
Shot Composition
24 FPS
Oh and ofcourse if there's any night scenes out on the streets/sidewalks, make sure to slick the streets with water, because it just rained for some reason. Always.
Ralph Oshiro
Veteran
Right. Nothing says "big budget Hollywood movie" than having every street completely wet (day or night). That's why I always try to make friends with the water truck guy on sets.monte said:
MattC
Veteran
Well on this we will have to agree to disagree. That's what "taste" is all about! I like film noir. I look at a film like Laura or Out of the Past or Asphalt Jungle, and love the lighting. And I love shadows. Do you not like the Godfather? Plenty of shadows there... I think many folks would say that it was lit correctly...
Then I watch a film like Napoleon Dynamite (which was all the rage on this board) and I think it looked like complete garbage. NO lighting style whatsoever (to my way of thinking).
All of that said, your end points essentially agree with mine....
Matt
Then I watch a film like Napoleon Dynamite (which was all the rage on this board) and I think it looked like complete garbage. NO lighting style whatsoever (to my way of thinking).
All of that said, your end points essentially agree with mine....
Matt
monte
Bag of Douche
But, Matt - Napoleon WAS garbage! visually atleast...
But anyways - The godfather - Well I did like the look of it, but it wasn't lit like a noir... I have to disagree again
It was different, but similar - it was chiaroscuro. Yes it did liken itself to Noir drama in the fact that there was higher contrast between dark and light areas, but to base your argument on that fact alone doesn't make much sense - I felt that in the Godfather the contrast between light and dark wasn't so overpowering, as it is in Noirs, that is to say - it doesn't stick out like an oriental rug in a spoon factory.
That's why I liked the Godfather though, I liked that pastel ... sort of painting-like look and feel to it. It really did look like an italian painting from the 1500's... interesting choice for the film (italian paintings - italian mafia, i could go off making assumptions, but I doubt Francis intended any of those assumptions to be made, and I hate overanalyzing anyways)
Another film that (arguably) uses chiaroscuro would be Taxi Driver, one of my favorite films in the history of mankind. I say arguably, because I've had conversations where people have said, "Hey monte, Taxi driver doesn't have that kind of lighting." and then we argue about it.
But anyways - The godfather - Well I did like the look of it, but it wasn't lit like a noir... I have to disagree again
It was different, but similar - it was chiaroscuro. Yes it did liken itself to Noir drama in the fact that there was higher contrast between dark and light areas, but to base your argument on that fact alone doesn't make much sense - I felt that in the Godfather the contrast between light and dark wasn't so overpowering, as it is in Noirs, that is to say - it doesn't stick out like an oriental rug in a spoon factory.
That's why I liked the Godfather though, I liked that pastel ... sort of painting-like look and feel to it. It really did look like an italian painting from the 1500's... interesting choice for the film (italian paintings - italian mafia, i could go off making assumptions, but I doubt Francis intended any of those assumptions to be made, and I hate overanalyzing anyways)
Another film that (arguably) uses chiaroscuro would be Taxi Driver, one of my favorite films in the history of mankind. I say arguably, because I've had conversations where people have said, "Hey monte, Taxi driver doesn't have that kind of lighting." and then we argue about it.
MattC
Veteran
Oh I'm not confusing the Chiaroscuro of the Godfather with Noir - but you said you hate shadows, and well, you can't have chiaroscuro without shadows. (And I don't think that the look of the film resembling those paintings was an accident - not at all.)
Have you seen many noirs (Laura, Asphalt Jungle, This Gun for Hire, Out of the Past, Touch of Evil, Hangover Square, The Money Trap, Where the Sidewalk Ends, Kiss Me Deadly, Dual in the Sun - stunning cinematography, Double Indemnity, Notorious - although to a lesser extent, and on and on)? I only ask because while some are trash, many are very, very good. What about more modern films done in a noir style, like Payback or Blade Runner? I have a book you should check out called Noir Style. It's gorgeous, at least to my way of thinking. I don't think that Taxi Driver has what you would call a classic chiaroscuro, (for example, I don't recall ever seeing any classic Rembrant "Vs") but it certainly uses light and shadow to create depth and dimension.
Have you seen many noirs (Laura, Asphalt Jungle, This Gun for Hire, Out of the Past, Touch of Evil, Hangover Square, The Money Trap, Where the Sidewalk Ends, Kiss Me Deadly, Dual in the Sun - stunning cinematography, Double Indemnity, Notorious - although to a lesser extent, and on and on)? I only ask because while some are trash, many are very, very good. What about more modern films done in a noir style, like Payback or Blade Runner? I have a book you should check out called Noir Style. It's gorgeous, at least to my way of thinking. I don't think that Taxi Driver has what you would call a classic chiaroscuro, (for example, I don't recall ever seeing any classic Rembrant "Vs") but it certainly uses light and shadow to create depth and dimension.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
The GOdfather films are wonderfully lit!
Rick Meyer
Veteran
monte said:
Don't know if you are just being flip but if you arent...they usually do that as a personal creative choice. The wet roads reflect the lights better making for a prettier picture. This goes to MATT C's point, that LIGHTING is nearly everything.
Color Correction for sure. Someone pointed out before that a movie does not NEED to be shot on film to look cinematic. This is true. Take "28 Days Later" for example. While I was watching it, I had no idea that it was shot on an XL1. But, you know darn well that besides transferring it to film, they color graded the hell out of that to enrich the colors and soften the lines.
NBCshooter-thank you for agreeing with a point of mine. I thought I was talking to myself.
Also, a good DP. A good DP will treat each subject/story differently with respect to how to best light, frame and color the piece. I thought "THE PATRIOT" was a typical cookie cutter Hollywood big budget snore. The cinematography however, grabbed me. It was absolutely stunning. I was watching it on a DVD and would randomly freeze frame the shot...nearly every freeze frame looked like a beautifully composed John Trumbull painting. There was a strict attention to detail with respect to colors, lots of blues, reds, and whites, obviously. Wheat fields, amber waves of grain and yadda yadda yadda. You get the point.
But, most of this was shot outside. So, he didn't have to, nor could he light for 3 demensions. But, with colors, he painted the HELL out of that flick.
Rick
Beat Takeshi
Two-Hip Shakur
I was going to say waht rlm said about the water on the streets creating highlites and makes the light reflect off of everything actually creating more light bounce illuminating those shadowy areas and creating slight caustic effects on the walls
