What makes film look like film?

roxics

roxics

Veteran
Million dollar question I know. I've been on this forum and others for a long time and I have seen the constant push toward trying to make video more film-like. Specifically I think everyone is just after that suspension of disbelief quality that film seems to have built into it. Even some of the worst shot film seems to retain that quality while some of the best shot video can still look like video and pull you out of the believability of it. For example I was watching House of Cards season two the other day and for as good as it usually looks, one scene just looked like video to me. It stood out.

I've seen this and other communities move from one obession to another. First it was 24p (F900 and DVX100) and then by the middle of the last decade everyone seemed convinced that shallow depth of field through the use of DOF adapters or large sensors (DSLRs later on) were the answer. Higher resolutions seemed to fall in there somewhere. Now I see an obsession with dynamic range and color grading. Yet none of it is completely convincing me. There is still something missing.

Let's look at this random super 8 film I found on youtube.


It has none of the characteriestics people have been fighting for in the video world. It's super 8 so it has deep depth of field, it has a fairly low dymanic range. Resolution is about standard definition, not even HD. It's even hand held so it doesn't have any of those fancy camera moves of a higher budget or well planned production. About the only thing it might have going for it is color, yet when you look at B&W super 8 film, it doesn't even have that. Such as the example below. Yet both of these look like film and contain that quality that suspends ones disbelief.


So what are we missing?

I'm trying to figure it out, because I know different digital cameras are better than others at coming close to achiving this, with the Alexa the current king. But the GH1/2/3/4 all suffering from a video look even after being well shot and graded. The Canon DSLR cameras come somewhere just above the GH cameras (just barely), which is why I switched to one a year back even though the resolution/sharpness/moiré were more problematic. But the images they produce are still more film-like. Even if just by a pinch.

IDK what are your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
The whole "shallow DOF is what makes things 'cinematic' and 'film-like'" argument is tiresome. Shallow DOF is a tool that is used sparingly and intentionally to isolate the viewer's attention when needed.

What makes film look like film is a combination of several things, some that can be easily replicated in the digital world and some that cannot.

1) Frame rate: film has been shot at 24fps for a hundred years. The motion artifacts of 24fps are telling and are part of what gives a motion picture it's characteristic look. This can be done easily in the digital world.

2) Lensing: selection of cinema primes, and properly-chosen focal lengths per shot, both help tell the visual story in ways that make things larger than life, help emphasize certain subjects, give a dreamy/fantastic feeling, etc. Again, this can be done in the digital world, too.

3) Emulsion: this is where film is still the reigning king for many in crafting the image. The film emulsion offers a few characteristics including grain, color reproduction, and latitude/DR. If #s 1 and 2 are done right, then this #3 is what sells it with film, and where digital is still struggling. There are filters and plug-ins that add grain in post, but that can only go so far. There are even grading presets and other post plug-ins that play with curves and saturation to try and emulate classic film stocks, but they are limited and especially so where the source footage is not up to taking a beating in post (see: h.264 codec). There are sensors that match (or even beat) the dynamic range of film, but the color reproduction is something that digital is still trying to figure out when acquiring that "film-like" image.

4) Post-processing: much of the look with film was captured directly to the film. The rest of it was carefully crafted in processing the film (developing) and in the color timing process later on. Digital takes the captured image (in 1s and 0s) and shifts the data around to create a new image. It's just not the same, and doesn't allow for the same results.

Perrone Ford has a great thread running in the Cinemetography section about "being cinematic" that goes through the stuff that is easy to do even when shooting digital: lighting, lensing, framing, camera movement... those are all well and good, and are techniques that must be mastered. The emulsion, though, is something that digital hasn't quite matched. It may be able to pass film in resolution and data gathering, but there's an organic feel when the grain and color and latitude are captured to celluloid rather than recreated with 1s and 0s. The softer image that film grain produces is often more pleasing to the eye than the ultra-sharp digital image. Again, the digital image can be softened in post but it still won't be quite the same as the organic grain and softness of film.
 
Consider, too, that no one can get inside someone else's head and see what they see, so it's difficult to answer "what makes film look like film" for someone else, especially when you're getting into perceptive undefinables.
 
You can't fool all of the people all of the time, but the footage coming out of the Alexa seems to fool most of the people most of the time.

I sat through all of 'Winters Bone' convinced it must have been shot on film; and was surprised to see it was a Red flick.

I think it's so close it's a moot point nowadays. Unless they try a high framrate thing like in The Hobbit. That was really distractingly different to the point that it drew attention to itself.
 
David Jimerson said:
Consider, too, that no one can get inside someone else's head and see what they see, so it's difficult to answer "what makes film look like film" for someone else, especially when you're getting into perceptive undefinables.
Click to expand...

Deje Vue. +1/ edit// I mean that , I think it really comes down to the story and directing. Not so much the film quality. imo.
//Probably wrong answer. :)
 
Last edited:
simonpwood said:
You can't fool all of the people all of the time, but the footage coming out of the Alexa seems to fool most of the people most of the time.

I sat through all of 'Winters Bone' convinced it must have been shot on film; and was surprised to see it was a Red flick.

I think it's so close it's a moot point nowadays. Unless they try a high framrate thing like in The Hobbit. That was really distractingly different to the point that it drew attention to itself.
Click to expand...

My most recent experience of 'was it digital or was it film'... was viewing 4 of the Best Picture contenders just before the Oscar Awards.

The result... the picture I thought was 'film', "Philomena"(2013), was shot mostly on an Alexa, with some Arriflex 16mm for 'vintage' look.
The among the other pictures, one I thought was digital, "12 Years a Slave"(2013), was shot on film, Kodak Vision 3, and ISOs of 50D, 250D and 500T.
 
simonpwood said:
You can't fool all of the people all of the time, but the footage coming out of the Alexa seems to fool most of the people most of the time.
Click to expand...

One of the things that I've become more convinced about, is that DSLR film making capabilities originally were intended for 'direct viewing', much like slide film, and so the 'latitude' was always targeted for that use.

There of course is the engineering of highspeed high bit depth digitization and resulting cost of producing, but the fact that there the manufacturers don't have a 'log' or a 'logish' mode, until very recently, or via 'hacks' (even if Magic Lantern is close to Canon...), suggests this design goal.

With that in mind, there will necessarily be a difference for those who look closely between DLSRs and 'negative film' material. If one were to compare DSLRs to reversal film, there may be less of a difference, and perhaps the digital may be better these days...
 
It's the motion that screws things up for video. My thought is film is very soft yet detailed. 1's and 0's are very harsh even when dumbed down. Alexa is very soft yet detailed. I bet if you blow up the Alexa and look closely at the edges of people and other objects they are smooth. I personally think thats the difference. Harsh edges in motion looks strobey and very digital which is basically most cameras below a certain price point. Maybe use wavelet compression to compress your files (like Red's own compression) though I wish all cameras used wavlets likr Jpeg2000 or something like that.

I really believe the difference is motion. A good color artist ca take a snapshot of film and easily mimic the look on a decent (and even cheap) digital camera. But when motion comes into play the difference jumps right out at you. The Alexa's high DR does not mean much of anything. I was told by a friend once that high DR can easily be faked. We see it all of the time. THAT is not what makes digital look like film.

Personally Idont think the examples above look any different from ols SD video. But that is just me.
 
Alex H. said:
The whole "shallow DOF is what makes things 'cinematic' and 'film-like'" argument is tiresome. Shallow DOF is a tool that is used sparingly and intentionally to isolate the viewer's attention when needed.
Click to expand...

All of these things that we associate with film are just visual cues. Before DSLR video and large sensors, shallow DOF was only possible with film. Video cameras had deep depth of field so deep depth of field became a visual cue for video. Thus, many people associate that shallow DOF look with film and it's become a visual cue that this should be perceived as "cinematic". I agree that it's been overused and was never used to this degree in cinema.
 
Ian-T said:
Alexa is very soft yet detailed. I bet if you blow up the Alexa and look closely at the edges of people and other objects they are smooth.
Click to expand...

Since I don't have access to an Alexa... I can't really say what would happen on pixel peeping. One of the 'differences' between digital and film is the grain structure, or the 'lack' thereof. Digital also has the issue of 'edge jaggies'. This has been commented on since the development of raster images, even in 'analog TV' days... (don't wear a checked coat on TV... etc...).

One way to deal with the jaggies is to soften the image to the point were 'edges' are blended with the non-edge area... this leads to a 'soft' image... great for those who worry about small facial wrinkles... but not so great for those who want sharp edges.

What happens by the nature of the silver glumps in film, is that edges, when viewed 'enlarged' have a random raggedness, due to how dense and how random the silver glumps were.

This is actually one digital technique, which is to add noise, and such edges will have some 'randomization' that simulates film the grain structure.

Since the grain 'placement' is random from frame to frame, one needs to randomize each frame, so as to not create a 'fixed pattern' of randomness.

I don't know that ARRI does this for the Alexa... but leaves 'grain' as a post production process, along with 'noise reduction'...

My biggest complaint about the 'it's not film' complainers... is that for most of the years that I could only view films in theaters, the print was often projected on a system that was not 'tuned up' for Premiere Audience viewing, but in fact, often had sprocket jitter, scratches, bulbs of various ages, an occasional break and attendant patching (back in the 50 cent theater days...), and much 'grain' in the case of the early 70's when many films were being shot on location with 'new wave' styles.

So, watching a digital film, perhaps with some 'jaggies'... is no big impediment for me. (Ok, maybe operators still use lower bulb settings than 16 f-Lambert even for digital projection (or is it 12 for digital... or is that the 3-d setting... or is it 7 for each of the 2 projectors for 3-d... but I digress...).


As a note... the 8mm examples... well... look 8mm...
 
Last edited:
"So what are we missing?"

Some good comments above.

Much can be achieved with good lighting, real attention to detail and nailing the exposure on the faces near middle grey. Also avoid blown out highlights, as that is a sure giveaway that you're shooting digital, although some have managed to "fix" the highlights in post.

That means max DR is desired because film and digital handle blown out highlights differently. Even when film flares out there is still grain in the crystal structure, massaging the retinas. This grain adds a texture that is lacking in digital footage, but sometimes added back.

I wrote an article on cinema cams btw.

Which brings me to compression: film is analog and uncompressed. Nothing is thrown away, but is instead soaked up as rich color. Older stocks may have been biased, but more recent ones are very good at capturing the colors put in front of it.

Uncompressed footage from digital cams looks more filmlike.

Plus global shutter rather than rolling. But even these are not implemented the same across cameras. There are visible differences in the cadence of the motion between frames. The film cameras have a certain look to them that seems very real and purposeful, and this often lacks in compressed, low DR, rolling shutter DSLR footage.

Plus the world is inundated with that DSLR look. Do better. The competition surely will.

 
Check out Phedon Papamichael on the ASC podcast for Nebraska talking about shooting with the Alexa and how the introduction of grain made it work for them to make it look like film. Of course, this is B&W. I think that the color science is getting there. Global shutter is also a big help. I'm not sure what we'll do with all the resolution and edge detail.

As we reach the line, as with Alexa, where trained eyes can't tell the difference, and more and more productions use digital cinema cameras, the aesthetic will change and matching film won't be the primary goal. I love the look of film as much as anyone but this quest for parity sometimes feels regressive.
 
Gord.T said:
Deje Vue. +1/ edit// I mean that , I think it really comes down to the story and directing. Not so much the film quality. imo.
//Probably wrong answer. :)
Click to expand...


This. I went to a local horror festival recently. Some of the short films that looked extremely professional and very close to "film" were terrible. Some of the poorly produced pieces that didn't look like film at all were fantastic.

I think the range an average audience accepts is much broader. If it's very, very videoy, small sensor video camera wiht no attempt at cinematic lighting, it can be distracting. But just a notch above that, and no one in the general audience seems to notice or care.

I think that as an artist you should be aware of your audience. Don't spend time sweating stuff they won't even perceive. Movie making is labor intensive and costly. You need to get as much bang for your buck as possible on the screen and yo don't do that by pixel peeping.

I do agree that the GH series looks more videoy to me (it's a lot of personal taste) and the Canon look is better because of the colors and softness. But your general audience at a film festival or on youtube isn't going to care if you use a Canon or Gh4/5.
 
hscully said:
Check out Phedon Papamichael on the ASC podcast for Nebraska talking about shooting with the Alexa and how the introduction of grain made it work for them to make it look like film. Of course, this is B&W. I think that the color science is getting there. Global shutter is also a big help. I'm not sure what we'll do with all the resolution and edge detail.

As we reach the line, as with Alexa, where trained eyes can't tell the difference, and more and more productions use digital cinema cameras, the aesthetic will change and matching film won't be the primary goal. I love the look of film as much as anyone but this quest for parity sometimes feels regressive.
Click to expand...

You're not trying to match film, you're trying to make a pretty image, which coincidentally matches film. I think people erroneously think that we try to match film because we're used to film. IMO, that is not the case at all. We try to match film because those qualities that film has, like 24fps, grain, dof, dynamic range, color saturation, are what creates a beautiful image.

I don't think the aesthetic will change. We've been watching video on commercials and soap operas for many, many years and no one has been asking for that look to be in theaters.

I used to think 24p was just an anachronism. An accident of rolling film through the gate trying to sync sound. Then I saw the HFR look. I'm pretty sure we could have rolled film trough the gate at any speed, but we stopped at 24fps and stayed there because it's beautiful. It's still beautiful at 24p, and not as much at 30p, or 60i.
 
Gillvane said:
You're not trying to match film, you're trying to make a pretty image, which coincidentally matches film. I think people erroneously think that we try to match film because we're used to film. IMO, that is not the case at all. We try to match film because those qualities that film has, like 24fps, grain, dof, dynamic range, color saturation, are what creates a beautiful image.

I don't think the aesthetic will change. We've been watching video on commercials and soap operas for many, many years and no one has been asking for that look to be in theaters.

I used to think 24p was just an anachronism. An accident of rolling film through the gate trying to sync sound. Then I saw the HFR look. I'm pretty sure we could have rolled film trough the gate at any speed, but we stopped at 24fps and stayed there because it's beautiful. It's still beautiful at 24p, and not as much at 30p, or 60i.
Click to expand...

Well I believe 24 fps was a technical/cost compromise to do with the minimum they needed for sound. But we're used to it and like it at this point.

The Hobbit looked awful to me, but maybe if we had grown up with HFR we'd think 24 was awful.
 
It definitely has a lot to do with motion. There's other important characteristics to consider, but "videoesque" motion really takes you out that dream like quality film has. There's much, much more to it than simply "24p". CCD's inhernently capture motion differently than CMOS sensors and look quite a bit more film like in that regard specifically. There's definitely a lot that influences motion such as an OLPF as others have mentioned as well.
 
simonpwood said:
Well I believe 24 fps was a technical/cost compromise to do with the minimum they needed for sound. But we're used to it and like it at this point.

The Hobbit looked awful to me, but maybe if we had grown up with HFR we'd think 24 was awful.
Click to expand...

We DID grow up with HFR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top