What makes Film Look like Film?

H

Homunculus

Carbonite Member
Hi guys today trying to get to the bottom of this I watched side by side HD scenes of Saving Private Ryan on youtube and also some WW2 film shot on canon 5dmkii.

I was trying real hard, wracking my brain of why Saving Private Ryan looked the way that it did and why it looked "better" and more "filmic" to me than the canon 5dii film footage.

Here are some of my initial observations. Please share your thoughts, comments, criticisms/corrections of this.

1. despite many people claiming that it's the shallow depth of field that gives film its look, I found the opposite. To me it seemed Saving Private Ryan had a far deeper DoF and much more detail was visible in the backgrounds rather than the typical "stills photography" portrait look of a lot of HDSLR indie films where the face/subject is in focus very sharp and the entire background is a mush of perfect bokeh.

2. Speaking of 'sharpness', the detail actually seemed far inferior to me. What I mean is, the canon 5dii footage seemed much 'slicker' and more detailed whereas Saving Private Ryan looked like it was shot on a much lower megapixel camera. This seems to be confirmed by recent readings I've done that calculated most hollywood grade top film cameras to top out at the equivalent of only a measly 2.0 megapixels. I.E. according to this article, Avatar etc is only 2-3 megapixels at the most and films like District 9 shot on Red and such are 9 megapixels at the highest. This isn't even close to GH1 territory of 12MP let alone the Canon5d territory of 21MP which is literally 10 times more according to this article. Now problem is, I don't know how accurate this is because I've heard other people say that hollywood film cameras are equivalent of 20-30MP ...however as I said my meager observations seemed to indicate far less detail such as on closeups and faces in Saving Private Ryan.

3. Despite these supposed "short comings" why is it that Saving Private Ryan still looked a million times superior to me all in all? Is it the gestalt effect of the top notch acting, ground breaking color grading and film bleaching, alongside legendary cinematography (Kaminski) that achieved this? Or is it something to film that I am missing ...does anyone know this answer or is this one of those things where everyone holds their own opinions on the matter?

I'm starting to think to achieve real filmic images you need to use a camera with much more depth of field and one with much less megapixels as the grittiness is taken away with such ultra sharpness that things like 5dmii/hacked gh1 provide.

Where am I wrong?
 
Homunculus said:
Where am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Just about everywhere, but for starters a DLSR like the 5D does not record HD at its full megapixel range. It only samples it to 1920x1080, which isn't even 2k. And then motion picture film is capable of much higher color fidelity than any DSLR. Some digital cameras like RED come closer but still don't match it. And Saving Private Ryan does not have exceptional depth of field. What you are perceiving is the high speed shutter effect which eliminates blur and gives everything a hyper real sharpness. Film negative is still the gold standard. However, by the time a film reaches the theaters its been duped several times to the point where the image loses about half its resolution.
 
Another note, Saving Private Ryan is not the best benchmark to compare to. Speilberg had Panavision completely strip the coating of his lenses to get a more period look. Not many films do this or have the clout to have Panavision do this to their lenses. It makes the highlights flare and overall softens the image.
 
thanks for the replies guys. I know Saving Private Ryan isn't necessarily any sort of benchmark it's just that I happened to see that canon 5dii war movie clip and said what the hell and turned on Private Ryan on youtube since I knew I could probably find at least clips of it there.

Can you tell me what the difference between the lenses they use on something like Saving Private Ryan and the Canon/Nikon/Lumix stuff we in DLSR world use?

Are their lenses better for some reason, are they faster, what sort of focal lengths and apertures are they using for wide shots, medium shots etc for something like Saving Private Ryan?

And Batutta what do you mean by color fidelity? Do you mean like dynamic range?
 
oh and p.s. how does something like the sony F23 I think it was that was used for Mann's Public Enemies compare to the Red? Is it better/worse/equal and if so, in what way?
 
Homunculus said:
And Batutta what do you mean by color fidelity? Do you mean like dynamic range?
Click to expand...

Yes, the range of colors it can faithfully reproduce. Dynamic range usually refers to the range from bright to dark the film or sensor can see at one time. If you want to break it down, the primary aspects that make film look like film are--

Frame Rate (24 fps)

Color Depth (The range of colors the medium can reproduce)

Depth of Field (dictated by the size of the film or sensor and the optics of the lens)

Other considerations like grain structure, shutter speed and color grading are more artistic considerations that aren't crucial to the film look, but often help sell the effect with digital capture.
 
Batutta said:
Yes, the range of colors it can faithfully reproduce. Dynamic range usually refers to the range from bright to dark the film or sensor can see at one time. If you want to break it down, the primary aspects that make film look like film are--

Frame Rate (24 fps)

Color Depth (The range of colors the medium can reproduce)

Depth of Field (dictated by the size of the film or sensor and the optics of the lens)

Other considerations like grain structure, shutter speed and color grading are more artistic considerations that aren't crucial to the film look, but often help sell the effect with digital capture.
Click to expand...


1. but how does that differentiate film, i.e. 24fps, aren't we all now doing 24fps on DSLR's, or is 1080 "24p" on GH1 for instance not equal to 24fps of film somehow? Film does look a little less FPS to me but I never understood why when it's the same 24 that DSLR's now are being set to....

2. how does the top end (panavision etc) film cameras "sensors" (or whatever they have) compare to sensors on DSLR? And how do the optics of the lenses compare?

3. how about shutter speed, what does a film shutter speed shoot at generally? anyone know?
 
Film and digital imaging are two different things. Film looks the way it looks not because of DOF. Film looks the way it looks because of the way that it makes an image, besides the frame size and lens focal length. Film is an analog process, where in the subtle graduations of light are recorded with almost the same infinite variations that this light has to offer.

Digital imaging is not that.

Comparing film images, side by side, with digital images is a futile exercise. Film is a technology that has over one hundred years of advancement. Digital imaging, at best, has less than 30 years of advancement.

Film images look like film because they are film. Digital images don't look like film because they are not film. It is just that simple.
 
Money. Lots of cold hard cash.

There is also the fact that film is chemical, and digital is, well... it's digital. I liken it to someone painting onto a canvas, and then trying to replicate the same piece of art with photoshop brushes or 3D software. It is always going to look different, no matter how talented the artist is at mimicry. Plus paintings, especially oil paintings actually have a texture to them on the canvas.

But damn if some people haven't gotten pretty freaking close to film with cams like the Red One, Panavision Genesis, DVX/HVX, DSLR's. Heck, these days Sony's and Canon's HD cameras can look really nice and film-like, at least in the way a DVX or HVX can. To me though, even the Red One or a Panavision Genesis is still not the same as film.
 
Homunculus said:
1. but how does that differentiate film, i.e. 24fps, aren't we all now doing 24fps on DSLR's, or is 1080 "24p" on GH1 for instance not equal to 24fps of film somehow? Film does look a little less FPS to me but I never understood why when it's the same 24 that DSLR's now are being set to....
Click to expand...

If a digital camera is truly imaging at 24 fps (or 23.976), the motion cadence is exactly the same as film at 24 fps with the same shutter.

I cannot speak for DSLRs, but video cameras such as the DVX and HPX lines do indeed image properly at 23.976 and do exactly replicate the motion cadence of 24 fps film.
 
Keep in mind that film is many times the resolution of digital cameras. This mainly has to do with it's grain structure. Digital tries to mimic film (fairly succesfully might I add, especially to the untrained eye). However color, light and Grain is really what seperate digital from film when all the other technical stats are equal. The range of film is still far superior to digital on many levels which is why a lot of people still shoot on it (mainly to archive and to transfer onto the next latest technology). I'm not saying this won't change, but for now it's like this.

But also something has a cinematic look not just because of it's technical specs. It's also how it's used. You need to understand the medium of which you are shooting and how to use it. Then it comes down to lighting, color grading, use of dof (not necessarily a short one, but a properly used one), content, framing, etc...

Here's a good video you might want to check out for a real technical comparison. While it's a camera shootout to compare DSLRs they use film as a standard to work from for every test. None of the DSLRs really meet up to the standards of film, but they do surprisingly well, and it gives you an idea of why film and digital are different with side by side tests. Watch in HD.

http://vimeo.com/groups/8447/videos/11080239
 
Last edited:
It looks like a film because you have some of the best minds in the industry coming together to create a piece of work greater then the sum of its parts. There is nothing you can point to and say, "here, this is why they are different."

Honestly it shouldn't even be a discussion of which camera was used.
 
Homunculus said:
Hi guys today trying to get to the bottom of this I watched side by side HD scenes of Saving Private Ryan on youtube and also some WW2 film shot on canon 5dmkii.
Click to expand...


I think the most significant difference between 'film', in a major motion picture, and 'DSLR/VIDEO' camera work, is how much money and time is spent in 1) lighthing, 2) set/props/costume. That's the production side. In the post production, 1) Color grading, 2) 'fancy' processing with equipment that is 100'sK $$ (typically rented...)...

Then there's sound...

There are some subtle effects having to do with 'grain', but these days with the use of Digital Intermediates, once the film is 'shot', and digitized, the 'grain' pattern of the original 'film' is 'fixed', for whatever pattern (or sequence of patterns) it may have had.

I don't have a lot of plugins, but I've seen reference to people who have used various 'grain' filters, with varying degrees of 'good lookingness'...

But back to lighting... look at a standard 'movie' set... big lights, even in the middle of the day. Big screens, especially in the middle of the day. Guys/Gals running around with bounce cards as the steady cam operator catches the 'action', etc. to keep light in the face of the actors... at least a catch light in the eyes...

This sort of thing probably is not done on the 'low' budget film project...

Even in a more static interior shot, where someone should have taken the time to setup the lights so that 1) talent's faces are well lit for the mood of the shot, but are still 'brought out from the background'... and the background is lit to have 'detail' but not so 'flat' that someone thinks 'video' at first glance.

But back to one item... props/costume... If one listens to the special features, while much of the prater is just 'fluff', one does hear a few important items... I think in the "Chrystal Scull" Special Features, there was mention of several 'leather' Indy jackets... not 'one', not 'two' but a number all 'distressed' looking like they had been well broken in, and worn for some time... in addition to the jackets for the 'talent' there were similar jackets for the stunt doubles, all 'broken in'...

In the WWII 5D film... did the utilities look 'worn', look like they've been in a battle, or do they look almost brandnew with some mud and crud just flung on?

Another aspect is the final 'look'. While some folks mention the greater 'intensity' resolution of film, which is true... what often happens is that the end result is 'far more desaturated' and shifted than the original. Again going back to the Special Features, and watch the video of the 'on set' sequences, and notice how the 'video' looks bright, colors really saturated... then compare the film... muted, subtle, even shifted...

Back in the olden days, of pure film... a 'film' on screen, often was at least 4-5 'generations' from the original negative, or even more for 'special effects'. So while some people 'swarm' over the result as 'film', some of this processing, necessary as it was, created 'artifacts', that are 'missing' from direct digital sensor image capture, and are used as the 'tell' on whether the viewed media was 'shot on film', or a digital capture...

As for using 'Saving Private Ryan"(1998) as a 'model'... as others have mentioned the lenses had the 'coating' removed, to better simulate the lenses of the day in WWII. I don't know if they also took a ballpeen hammer to the lens to knock out some of the chromatic correction as well... But Kaminski is well know for his 'bloom' on highlights, coated lenses or not...
 
I may be in the few here, but I personally love the image these Canon HDSLRs produce. Film or not, for less than a couple of thousand dollars you can have an excellent image.

Who cares if film is the "Gold Standard". Many horrible movies were shot on film. So film does not make a movie good. To me it's about the story, the action, the camera angles, what's really going on, actors ,etc. That make a good movie or tv show.

Your favorite movie could have been shot on a HDSLR and it would still be your favorite movie......
 
Cieloent said:
Who cares if film is the "Gold Standard". Many horrible movies were shot on film. So film does not make a movie good. To me it's about the story, the action, the camera angles, what's really going on, actors ,etc. That make a good movie or tv show.
Click to expand...

No one here is saying that shooting a movie on film as opposed to digital makes it good. The OP's question dealt specifically with the differences between film and digital as formats from a cinematography standpoint. And, from a cinematography standpoint, there is no arguing against the fact that currently film is still the format with the highest overall quality in terms of cinematic look.
 
Finnegan said:
No one here is saying that shooting a movie on film as opposed to digital makes it good. The OP's question dealt specifically with the differences between film and digital as formats from a cinematography standpoint. And, from a cinematography standpoint, there is no arguing against the fact that currently film is still the format with the highest overall quality in terms of cinematic look.
Click to expand...
Yes I don't know what it is but the film just looks more organic and less static. What is this about grain structure people talk about because the film did look more grainy in some indescribable way but in a good way that added to that organicness.


And yes I've seen the Zacuto shoot out but I wasn't sure what I was seeing in terms of film. It was Kodak and Fuji 35mm film, as in the actual roll of film but what kind of camera was shooting it? Does the camera not matter, is everything in the film? I just don't understand how it works.

And I thought Zacuto pretty conclusively found that DSLR's were much better than this high end film in low light conditions but if that's the case then why is everyone saying that film is far superior in dynamic range and colors and all that?

Also I still don't quite grasp the resolution issue. Everyone seems to understand it differently. Like I said I read an article that film is only 2 megapixel resolution equivalent, but other articles have stated that hollywood film is equivalent to as high as 800 megapixels. (yes I've actually seen something along these lines in a article, what the hell??)

Can someone give me an idea what sort of lenses the top hollywood films are shot on? Can you link the lenses perhaps or state what their characteristics are in terms of the focal length, apertures, etc...do they shoot with F1.4 type of aperture equivalents or is it a totally different system?
 
Nektonic said:
Money. Lots of cold hard cash.

There is also the fact that film is chemical, and digital is, well... it's digital. I liken it to someone painting onto a canvas, and then trying to replicate the same piece of art with photoshop brushes or 3D software. It is always going to look different, no matter how talented the artist is at mimicry. Plus paintings, especially oil paintings actually have a texture to them on the canvas.
Click to expand...

this is exactly it. film has texture, digital has none.

then there's the whole dynamic range thing, too.

digital is getting better all the time, and might supersede the quality of film eventually, but who knows when.

if you really want to appreciate the look of film, and get a feel of why digital still has a ways to go, i highly recommed you watch a movie called "baraka" (wiki, imdb). get it in hi-def/blu-ray.

it was shot on 70mm or 65mm film. resolution of the images captured would be well over 20MP in digital terms.

one purpose of making that film was to show how motion pictures can be just as beautiful as stills. and i think they succeeded.

i saw it in 1080 and it blew me away. no consumer camera that shoots 1080 can even come close to the detail and quality of 70mm film. i doubt any professional cameras can, either.

highly recommended.

cheers.


pictures 1920x1080
 
most films you see are shot on either Panavision or Zeiss, that's it!

http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/products/s4i.html
http://www.panavision.com/in_frame_detail.php?spotid=4&langid=1

Comparing film to digital its a long discussion, mainly because you are still trying to understand the basics. But the main difference from film and digital its that film its a organic, photochemical process (very old indeed) it offers great photographic advantages, we call it advantages because nothing else has been available for the past 150 years! So most discussions around color depth, dynamic range, etc. its always compared to film because there is nothing else to compared it to!

I personally like where digital "film" is going, specially with the look of the recent DSLR's it made everyone go back to the drawing board and evaluate what it is exactly that makes a "good" image. And this can be a very abstract discussion...

Film also has a lot of disadvantages, it deteriorates, it only has one color temperature per roll, one ISO per roll, 12 minutes of film on each roll, its very expensive and more so to develop and grade, its big, heavy and the cameras like so, they are less sensitive to light, meaning its more expensive and time consuming to light on film, etc... So the question is, does all this cons make up for the "better" image film gives us?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinematography
http://apples.carsonwilson.com/index.php?/categories/3-Published-Comparisons
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top