• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Cinematic Motion

knightly

knightly

So, I was watching movies with the intent purpose of trying to see if I could unlock the secret to the difference between 24fps film vs 30p video. All of the obious frame rates and motion blurs aside, I found moments where a specific camera move or actor's ..um.. action would take me away from the "Cinema" experience and put me on the set seeing more of a video looking thing.

I've also had moments where Video stops looking like video and starts looking more like film.

So other than frame rates, what do you think contributes to the Cinema/Film feel?

I've come up with a short list:

Contrast range
Actor's Motion
Camera Motion
Lighting (softer vs. harder, tons more lighting-8 point vs. 3 point, set design/frame composition)
Edge Characteristics (Grain vs. Grid)
Depth of Field
Motion Blur

I'm wondering if there is a way to overcome some of these things to be able to get Video to look more Cinematic. Is it possible that I'm trying to use technical stuff to overcome the limitations of SD when I should be looking for changes in front of the camera? I'm still looking for my magic recipe!
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
All your camera moves should be fluid and avoid zooming in or out, use a dolly to push in or pull out as needed. Never use autofocus. These are the basics which I'm sure you already know.

Although it's actually kind of counter intuitive, the best solution to making video look filmic is to pump a lot of light into your shots. One would tend to think that since video tends to be much harsher in the lighting area than film, that lower light levels would help. However you really want to fill up the scene with light and then adjust contrast and coloring in post, basically, you want to provide the camera with enough light to record all the information, then drop some of it out in post to make the blacks darker, and increase depth with shadow areas and such. I can tell you that the extra features on the 'broken' dvd are informative in this respect, and should help you on your quest for sure.

As for actors, well there really is no substitute for properly trained actors with on camera experience, that covers not only their delivery of lines but their physical actions and prescence as well.

Depth of field is an issue, but it's probably one of the least of your worries. If there is a shot you need some obvious defocused elements in there are a couple ways to acheive it. You can put the background much further away from the subject to be in focus, and then zoom in and focus on the subject. This acheives two things, firstly it blurs out the background, what you wanted to do, and second it compresses the foreground and background together so that it's not clearly obvious there's a massive amount of space between them.

Secondly, you can apply some filters in post. I have found using a radial blur with very minimal settings to be effective. Basically you center it on the subject, and then it gradually increases the level of blur the further from that point it gets, using keyframes you can follow a subject around the screen this way, though it's most effective as a regular 'depth of field' effect if it's stationary. Incidentally, we used both of these techniques in 'Do Us Part' which you saw in Minneapolis last month. ;)

I hope that helps at least a little bit. As far as in front of the camera stuff goes, try to audition as many trained actors as possible, and maybe check out a few books.

The two from Steven Katz... "Film Directing: Shot by Shot" and "Film Directing: Cinematic Motion" are good to have on the bookshelf as a part of the permanent reference library. (If you click on the title of the second one, I think they give you the 'buy them together and save' option, which saves you about $10)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yep, I have those 2 books and love them. I also have found it weird about DV doing better with more light. Just finished reading John Alton's "Painting with Light". Old stuff, but very relavant. I was surprised when he started dealing with the more compex lighting with scrims and butterflies. The fact that different areas of the face are lit separately as are the clothes just blew me away. I'm curious as to whether these practices are still followed today.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Will Vincent said:
The two from Steven Katz... "Film Directing: Shot by Shot" and "Film Directing: Cinematic Motion" are good to have on the bookshelf as a part of the permanent reference library.
Click to expand...

These two books are the staple of any wannabe director's library in my opinion too. They lean more towards the camera-side of the director's job, but it does it incredibly well and written with a tone that's easily understood and engaging. Equally good in video form is the HOLLYWOOD CAMERA DVD set that someone else on another thread here pointed me to. It's basicly the Film Directing: Cinematic Motion on DVD.

How they relate to the original post is this.... a well lit, evenly exposed frame with something compelling (meaning performance, dialogue, story, etc.) and people won't give a hoot what it was shot on.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Alternatively, if you have or get Frameforge 3D for storyboarding.. they've got a bunch (maybe all?) of the examples from the book available for download, so they can be loaded into the program and then you get any view of those setups you want, as they exist in 3d space. ;)

sonnyboo said:
How they relate to the original post is this.... a well lit, evenly exposed frame with something compelling (meaning performance, dialogue, story, etc.) and people won't give a hoot what it was shot on.
Click to expand...
That and 90% of the people who see it (assuming it's distributed beyond the borders of this website) wouldn't know anyway.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I saw a couple of shorts from IPIFF that definitely looked very filmlike but were video, both were shot with a DVX. I think the biggest key is to not give away the obvious technical limitations of video, IE make very purposeful and steady movements, NEVER blow out your whites in a shot, and generally light like you were shooting for film. Overall I was really suprised with The Soup Party and how well it turned out, i mean for my first short and all. The two worst scenes though were when the background was mostly blown out.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top