What makes Film Look like Film?

Sorry Timur. but that is not true IMHO.

If you take actors, lights, set design and everything else out of the game film still looks different.
Let´s say you shoot the typical natural lit street scene in New York - just a wide master and some pedestrians on a long lens.
We all know this type of shots, right?

Video will still look different than film unless you speed up the film a bit.
That´s what happens in those 200 Hz TV sets - looks instantly like video or a sitcom.
Take any DVD or Bluray of your favorite shot-on-film block buster and speed it up just a few percent - there you got it: video.

So one part of "The Filmlook is in the motion that get´s instantly lost if you speed it up.
The other part is the organic light response and the way film captures detail. But most of it is motion.

Frank
 
Postmaster said:
Sorry Timur. but that is not true IMHO.

If you take actors, lights, set design and everything else out of the game film still looks different.
Let´s say you shoot the typical natural lit street scene in New York - just a wide master and some pedestrians on a long lens.
We all know this type of shots, right?

Video will still look different than film unless you speed up the film a bit.
That´s what happens in those 200 Hz TV sets - looks instantly like video or a sitcom.
Take any DVD or Bluray of your favorite shot-on-film block buster and speed it up just a few percent - there you got it: video.

So one part of "The Filmlook is in the motion that get´s instantly lost if you speed it up.
The other part is the organic light response and the way film captures detail. But most of it is motion.

Frank
Click to expand...

Im not talkign about the frame rate. I'm talking about why a "film" looks like a film, and turning a camera on in your living room isnt quite the same.
 
Said it before, I'll say it again -- there's a world of difference between "the movie look" and "the film look" (defined as, images having been shot on film).

The Movie Look refers to lights, actors, composition, art direction, staging, camera movement, all that stuff.

The Film Look should refer to the unique characteristics of anything that's been shot on film, as opposed to having been shot on something else. That would involve the ISO, the color reproduction, the grain, the frame rate, the bob & weave, any dust or scratches, the characteristics curve, etc. Many of those elements are emulatable in post software, but not all.
 
Part of the movie look is sound, as well. Not trying to start a sound versus image debate, but that's definitely a big part of it. (speaking toward OP, not those of us who already know.)
 
Barry_Green said:
Said it before, I'll say it again -- there's a world of difference between "the movie look" and "the film look" (defined as, images having been shot on film).

The Movie Look refers to lights, actors, composition, art direction, staging, camera movement, all that stuff.

The Film Look should refer to the unique characteristics of anything that's been shot on film, as opposed to having been shot on something else. That would involve the ISO, the color reproduction, the grain, the frame rate, the bob & weave, any dust or scratches, the characteristics curve, etc. Many of those elements are emulatable in post software, but not all.
Click to expand...

Given your definition/distinction, yes, I'll agree that 'film look' and 'movie look' are directed to different subjects. I do think many posters conflate the two concepts.

In that regard I'd probably rate grain and latitude as the most significant, since while projection speeds are 24 fps, the shooting frame rates and shutter speads can vary, and so, can give different looks, perhaps even a 'video' look if someone's looking for it... well, other than interlace artifacts... but who shoots native 'interlace' these days anyway... as opposed to progressive formatted in interlace media, because the 'chip/dsp' is easier, or whatever...

Further, some of these items like 'dust/scratches', even transport items, sort of 'disappear', or become at least become 'frozen', when the material is digitized.
 
about the movie look, ill add that its also called...cinematography. It's like you start out saying geez I pointed the camera at something why doesn't it look it like a movie. Then its like wow it takes skill to know where and how to point it at something and what to point it at, just like with a still photography camera.


"To make a film entirely by yourself, which initially I did, you may not have to know very much about anything else, but you must know about photography."

- Stanley Kubrick


 
anybody seen "blue valentine" ?
it's a strait & simple 16mm, just cannot ask for more.
any chance getting something close to that or stop even thinking i could (i'm with GH2) ? ;)
 
Yes, it doesn't just mean low key, moody lighting. A cinematographer knows how/when to use high key lighting and natural light. Also about matching style with content. The duplass brothers often use somewhat flat light and their stuff looks videoish but they are shooting quirky indie comedies.

for the record im not the hugest mumblecore fan but they figured "it" out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf0ksFCaeI8
 
roei z said:
anybody seen "blue valentine" ?
it's a strait & simple 16mm, just cannot ask for more.
any chance getting something close to that or stop even thinking i could (i'm with GH2) ? ;)
Click to expand...

Just bought a Bolex B8 off of ebay. From the serial number, I think it was made about 1956... So, I'll be joining the 'Real(tm)' film movie making community, and making 'beautiful' filmic films shortly... well, as soon as I find an 8mm film supplier, developing process... and hope the windup spring in the Bolex works still... and there aren't any lightleaks, transport issues... and dust bunnies in the gate... or any number of elements that add to that filmic look... I'm pretty sure the lenses are uncoated as well, so if I do any beach scenes, I'm sure I'll be up there with Kaminski and "Saving Ryan's Privates'... well, if the Wife lets me shoot some porn...

Technically I bought it as a prop... but heck if it works... I'm sure it will be better than any digital video masquerading as 'film'...
 
memento515 said:
Yes, it doesn't just mean low key, moody lighting. A cinematographer knows how/when to use high key lighting and natural light. Also about matching style with content. The duplass brothers often use somewhat flat light and their stuff looks videoish but they are shooting quirky indie comedies.

for the record im not the hugest mumblecore fan but they figured "it" out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf0ksFCaeI8
Click to expand...

Ive shot a couple of mumble core films. Cant say i like it much. you arent doing any work at all. you dont even need a DP. Just strike a china lantern and point the camera at who ever is speaking.
 
Here both examples are shot on film but one looks like cheapo video because of bad lighting.
I read my previous posts here and i understand some reactions when i wrote that you dont need lights and mood, actually you do need to know where light hits your subjects even if you dont have lightbulbs, that was kinda tricky but i finally understood.
So what makes film look like film ?
- Director of Photography and his knowledge.
There are some technicals specs as well, fps and shutter speed of course.
http://vimeo.com/27140342
http://vimeo.com/7628542

*
---
*
*
 
Last edited:
I would say more than grain, it's simply the way the image handles light when it's exposed well and lit well. The motion is part of it, but for the most part if you were to take a static shot, that part of it matters very little if at all. It really comes down to the "look" the image has and how the typical viewer perceives it compared to what they've seen already.

I'm very pleased when people within 30 seconds of starting my last movie say "I like how it looks like a real movie..." That makes me smile because I know that I paid attention to the right things as best I could. Last time this happened it was on an older SDTV where the grain of the image couldn't really be seen, the resolution was low because of a DVD, sharpness was low and background detail almost non-existant, and because the TV wasn't even calibrated right the image was a lot brighter than it should've been with the deepness of my blacks being hijacked. YET, the comment was still made and they were still "fooled" for lack of a better word. It came down to the color, light, and framing. The motion especially if you have a lot of movement, but it's the LOOK in my opinion that causes that split second decision for a viewer of whether or not it looks lame or hollywood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top