What makes Film Look like Film?

thanks for the responses. very informative. One question I have about dynamic range.

I was just in my backyard shooting myself against a sky with some moderate cloud texture detail. When my exposure settings were set such that I was in good exposure and my immediate surroundings were as well, the exposure was basically so high that the entire sky was one giant blown out super bright white puff. Now if I set things lower like either lower ISO, or faster shutter speed, or much smaller aperture, or all of those combined, to the point where I could finally see the detail of the sky texture in the background, now the exposure of the entire scene around me, INCLUDING ME was so poor that it was almost pitch black.

Now my question is, is THIS what 'dynamic range' is? Is it basically that DSLR's are so poor at dynamic range that they can't even show detail in both the sky and the scene at the same time, either one is over exposed just to make the other exposed or one is completely underexposed to make the other decently exposed. Is that one of the biggest differences in film, i.e. if I was shooting that same scene on film it would expose both me, the scenery around me AND the sky very detailed?
Why is it that film can do this and digitals can't, is it lack of digital processing power, does it have to do with weak megapixels ...or what?
 
Homunculus said:
Now my question is, is THIS what 'dynamic range' is? Is it basically that DSLR's are so poor at dynamic range that they can't even show detail in both the sky and the scene at the same time, either one is over exposed just to make the other exposed or one is completely underexposed to make the other decently exposed.
Click to expand...


Film has a greater dynamic range, but you can still 'easily' blow out sky while trying to expose for the 'people/place'. It just easier to blow out digital representations...

In many movie shoots, when an outdoor scene is shot, the 'talent' is under a screen to prevent them from being blown out, and artificial lights are used to boost the 'shadow' side of the talent so that there is a nice '1:2' ratio... unless there is a specific dramatic effect. (in 'cheap' productions sometimes you will see the shadow of the 'fill' light because someone moves to close to a surface that would show such a shadow...)

In still photography one uses a fill flash to 'boost' the shadow side of people in bright sun, unless of course one is going for the 'new/documentary' look...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
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...)...
Click to expand...

I was going to say this too. Color grading and set design are two major factors. Most people who do indie film, do less than 0 color grading. That's starting to change now that people understand this plays a part in the overall look of the film.

Set design is another one. Finding great locations. "Wages of Sin" looked like it was shot for more because of locations we bought or rented. Even something as small as shooting in a family home that is fully decorated, versus your white walled apartment gives more of a real film feel. Having a person wear specific clothing versus just something they grabbed off the rack. Also shot design, how a shot will look, what it will connect too from shot to shot. Storyboarding helps with this.

Motion is also important. Some people love locked down shots but many modern films have a lot of camera moves. Also keep in mind all films don't look like Saving Private Ryan, but each has it's own look. Ask yourself what do you want your look to be. Go rent the movie "Gabriel" directed by Shane Abbess. They shot that film at 720p on a JVC HD100. It looks great. A person shouldn't be wondering if you shot film or video, they should be engrossed in what's on the screen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DbF...560C5F6C&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=20

-Nate
 
I think the biggest difference between film and digital lies in the ways they are used - the best people in the business are using film, and the rest are using digital.

Taking the OP's example of Saving Private Ryan and the indy film, there are alot of differences which are far more important than which camera/format is used.

Others have already mentioned some of these such as the costumes/props/set design and the amount of work/money which goes into them, and the choices the DoP made with the shutter speed, stripping the lens coatings and bleach bypassing the film etc. There's alot more differences than run right through every level of the production and the simple answer is that every person working on the bigger budget film was probably better than their equivelant on the low budget film (or they had 10 people on the big film doing the job of 1 person on the small film). So the production design is better, the locations are better, the costumes, props, and make up are better, the compositing and background matte's are better, the lighting is better, the sound is better, the colour grading is better, the visual effects are better (both real and CG), the cinametography, is better, etc, etc. I'm not taking away anything from the indy producers because I've seen some of the film I think you're talking about and it looks great...

Maybe if they used a Red or even a 5dmkii on Saving Private Ryan it would've looked completely different but my guess is that if they had, the film would look 98% identical to what it does because of all the other elements that would remain the same.
 
Homunculus said:
why it looked "better" and more "filmic" to me
Click to expand...
Why don't you take a step back and compare a Star Wars movie shot on film and one shot using a digital capture format. Same (or at least very similar) production values, different technology.

Do your impressions remain the same?
 
ceejay7777 said:
Why don't you take a step back and compare a Star Wars movie shot on film and one shot using a digital capture format. Same (or at least very similar) production values, different technology.

Do your impressions remain the same?
Click to expand...

Wow excellent point, the prequels were pure trash by comparison in every regard. This sort of invalidates the previous poster's points despite the fact that I agree with them. LOL!
Damn this bugger's tricky. Were the prequels really shot on all digital? What did they use do you know? You're telling me the prequels were shot on the same type of thing Michael Mann's movies like Public Enemies are shot?
But honestly the new star wars movies, what was so bad about them wasn't the footage quality per se, it was more the poor integration of that live action image WITH cgi via green screens and such.

DeltoidJohn: Very interesting points...I would KILL to see something shot by some "big names" on crappy equipment. It's a shame that such a thing is so rare. The only thing I can think of is some skit for SNL that was shot by Ron Howard (oscar winning director of a beautiful mind, etc, etc...) and it was shot I think on Canon 5d mark II though I can't remember for sure....and the other thing I suppose is Hous eon canon 5dii also but I'm curious do you guys have any other examples or a link to that House finale cus I've actually not seen it.

Any other footage of big named talent shooting on DSLR? And yes I've seen the whole Philip Bloom thing on Red Tails, but they were mostly just trying it out and not actually using it for the film to my knowledge.
 
Homunculus said:
DeltoidJohn: Very interesting points...I would KILL to see something shot by some "big names" on crappy equipment. It's a shame that such a thing is so rare. The only thing I can think of is some skit for SNL that was shot by Ron Howard (oscar winning director of a beautiful mind, etc, etc...) and it was shot I think on Canon 5d mark II though I can't remember for sure....and the other thing I suppose is Hous eon canon 5dii also but I'm curious do you guys have any other examples or a link to that House finale cus I've actually not seen it.
Click to expand...

Dude, Crank 2 was shot on the Canon Xh-A1 and a bunch of HF10 (or HF100) palmcorders and still looks better than what a lot of people do on the same equipment. It has to do with how you shoot. I'm telling you. Film is film, video is video, but you can get the look to a point it's not even a consideration and it's done so much now days. Here's some things you'll want to look at before you shoot your project:

Film Magic Pro from Video Copilot
The Master Shots book.
The DV Rebel's Guide
Motion Picture and Video Lighting
American Set Design and finally
Cinematography (They swore by this book in film school, I even have it today).

These will help you get the look you want.

-Nate
 
Last edited:
Honestly, when is the last time you went to see a digital film and had someone next to you say wow that looked like video. Probably not many so there you have it. The consumers you are trying to get to look at your films can care less if it was shot on a vcr tape as long as it looks good. This is the age in which we live. the only ones who will probaby question it is us.
 
Homunculus said:
Wow excellent point, the prequels were pure trash by comparison in every regard. This sort of invalidates the previous poster's points despite the fact that I agree with them. LOL!
Damn this bugger's tricky. Were the prequels really shot on all digital? What did they use do you know? You're telling me the prequels were shot on the same type of thing Michael Mann's movies like Public Enemies are shot?
But honestly the new star wars movies, what was so bad about them wasn't the footage quality per se, it was more the poor integration of that live action image WITH cgi via green screens and such.

DeltoidJohn: Very interesting points...I would KILL to see something shot by some "big names" on crappy equipment. It's a shame that such a thing is so rare. The only thing I can think of is some skit for SNL that was shot by Ron Howard (oscar winning director of a beautiful mind, etc, etc...) and it was shot I think on Canon 5d mark II though I can't remember for sure....and the other thing I suppose is Hous eon canon 5dii also but I'm curious do you guys have any other examples or a link to that House finale cus I've actually not seen it.

Any other footage of big named talent shooting on DSLR? And yes I've seen the whole Philip Bloom thing on Red Tails, but they were mostly just trying it out and not actually using it for the film to my knowledge.
Click to expand...

Well, Star Wars Episode One, "The Phantom Menace" was shot on film. The remaining prequels were shot on HDCAM, 1080 24P.

Well to see, "something shot by some "big names" on crappy equipment." all you need to do is go back to the DV days and check out "November", "28 Days Latter", "Bamboozled", "INLAND EMPIRE", and the other movies shot on DV. In my mind, the whole "Content Trumps Image Technical Quality" question was settled a long time ago. Modern HD cameras, including the current crop of video DSLRs are all capable of producing images that of a high enough quality to tell great stories. Now, not all stories can, or should not be made with every camera. Shooting a costume period piece with a Zip camera probably would not be a good idea, but I do believe that there are stories that could be told using a Zip camera.

Film and digital are different, and film is still a standard for which images for fictional narrative motion pictures are compared. However, I do believe that taking a modern digital HD camera and lamenting, "How do I make this look like film", is a limiting mind set. I believe that the approach should be, "How do I get the best image possible from the imaging system I have chosen that tells my story the best".
 
David G. Smith said:
Film and digital are different, and film is still a standard for which images for fictional narrative motion pictures are compared. However, I do believe that taking a modern digital HD camera and lamenting, "How do I make this look like film", is a limiting mind set. I believe that the approach should be, "How do I get the best image possible from the imaging system I have chosen that tells my story the best".
Click to expand...

This this this! Many times people try to make their digital cinematography look like it was shot on film, when actually the goal should be to create the best image for the job!

We live in a time where even cheap prosumer cameras have the capability to produce amazing cinematography. Sure, film may have better dynamic range, shallow dof, and the rest but if you're conscientious of the limitations of whatever medium you're working under you can overcome those. In my opinion it really comes down to what you're shooting, rather than what you're shooting with.

Light your scenes with extreme care, try to squeeze in as much highlight and shadow data as you can, choose the right locations/actors/wardrobe, be extremely careful with your image in post production (codecs, color correction) and you'll quickly have people coming up to you asking what type of film stock you shot your film on.
 
deltoidjohn said:
I think the biggest difference between film and digital lies in the ways they are used - the best people in the business are using film, and the rest are using digital.
Click to expand...

This is not true. There are many top cinematographers shooting digital as well as film. They're just tools of the trade - some films would probably benefit more from the look of film, others would benefit more from the look of digital. It's part of your responsibility as a cinematographer to know the strengths and weaknesses of both and utilize them to your advantage in crafting the aesthetics of the film itself. It is NOT your responsibility to weigh the pros and cons once, and forever stick with a mentality that one is better than the other and never change it.
 
private ryan looked better because it had better DP,ive seen some ugly handheld shots in predator movie and they were shot on film but looked like video camera because of bad camera use.
Anyway film look also depends on camera model,older cams had micro jitter and werent holding film strips super tight in frame ,its visible on films like ben-hur and other oldies,look from new cameras and film stocks look more clean now and more digital.
This is film but ddoesnt look like one for example:
http://vimeo.com/9613999

Look here how sound and bad deinterlacing could degrade image,this looks so bad because of sound and its shot on film:
http://vimeo.com/8833474
It hurts to watch this ,when film camera is treated like handycam because DP is lazy.
Here,the same DP.Same sound.Tough to watch thinking that its expensive film not video camera.
http://vimeo.com/8834582

And this is typical 35mm film look which i like very much,its not about lights ,not about sound here,but how camera renders movement ,theres also shallow depth of field ,it looks better for human eye because we see with shallow depth of field all the time,thats how eyes works and this picture is more natural for us than everything in focus shots.
http://vimeo.com/8177988
 
Last edited:
bwwd said:
private ryan looked better because it had better DP,ive seen some ugly handheld shots in predator movie and they were shot on film but looked like video camera because of bad camera use.
Anyway film look also depends on camera model,older cams had micro jitter and werent holding film strips super tight in frame ,its visible on films like ben-hur and other oldies,look from new cameras and film stocks look more clean now and more digital.
This is film but ddoesnt look like one for example:
http://vimeo.com/9613999

Look here how sound and bad deinterlacing could degrade image,this looks so bad because of sound and its shot on film:
http://vimeo.com/8833474
It hurts to watch this ,when film camera is treated like handycam because DP is lazy.
Here,the same DP.Same sound.Tough to watch thinking that its expensive film not video camera.
http://vimeo.com/8834582

And this is typical 35mm film look which i like very much,its not about lights ,not about sound here,but how camera renders movement ,theres also shallow depth of field ,it looks better for human eye because we see with shallow depth of field all the time,thats how eyes works and this picture is more natural for us than everything in focus shots.
http://vimeo.com/8177988
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting these examples bwwd. I can't believe how terrible the sound is on the middle two clips, and what a gigantic difference is makes. These clips are vital in that they demonstate that sh*t sound, lighting, acting and cinematography is still sh*t, no matter the medium.

The last clip was interesting and I like how to described it in your post in terms of camera rendering movement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top