Color grading looks more like 'digital', than 'film'.

[harmonica44]

Everyone is after the film look, which is a good thing, when making your movie look good. However I've noticed a lot of people are using computer color grading which is good, but it does give the digital look. It's because color grading is part of the digital age, rather than developing film.

A lot of tutorials on color grading try to make the movie look like an older movie, but it still looks computerized and not film natural.

It seems me to that if you want your movie to look like film, the best thing to do is not color grade at all. Than your movie looks closer to a 90s movie or older. And those movies have film looks, where as most movies from the 2000s and up, have digital looks. Even big budget Hollywood movies shot on film have digital looks. Skyfall was shot on film and even that looks a little digital, cause of the color grading, rather than going by the look of developing the film alone.

So it seems to me that the best way for getting your movie to look like film, is to not use computer color grading at all, or at least very subtly to get that 90s or older look. What do you think?

 

[manio143]

I'm not sure if I understand what you're trying to say, but isn't it like grading has to be made digitally and those films you're talking about were just not graded. Now the problem is to achieve a film look without color grading on a film tape (I guess that's the case) you have to arrange all colors in light and then without a lot equipment it can be very hard. So today's technology makes it easier with less work during the shooting. And you're saying that all those recent films have a digital look, which I guess is something most people like and are trying to get.
So you have two options:
- try to grade your footage to get as little digital look as possible
- do not grade and try getting everything in camera (the hard way)

 

[baoliun]

Film look is a fkng bullshit. Film was and is colour graded either in the lab or digitally.
Trying to get a film look with digital is like shooting super flat with h264.

Can you define film look? Is it the dynamic range? Grain? Colours? Anamorphic? Flicker of the projector?
Does Django have film look? Or Full metal jacket?

 

[chilipie]

Skyfall was shot on film and even that looks a little digital, cause of the color grading, rather than going by the look of developing the film alone.

Skyfall was shot on the Alexa. Do you not think the fact that you couldn't tell rather undermines the point you're trying to make?

 

[RED ROBOT]

Here is the thing .


Most people these days don't want to achieve the FILM look , they think they do but they simply don't .

Most people who are saying they want to achieve that film look are not saying that they want their movie to look like a 35mm or 16mm film but what they are saying is that they want they footage to look CINEMATIC . By saying FILM LOOK they are simply saying that they want their movie to look like the FILMS in the cinema .

When you get all those people who say they want to achieve the FILM look and they go to watch a motion picture in the theater they can't make the difference between film and digital ,but it looks nice and cinematic .


And yet again , all those people are saying that they don't want VIDEO look on their short films and that's why they want to achieve FILM look ( which most of the time they are referring to films like The Hobbit , they think it has the film look ! ) .

And about the no color grading thing . It is complete bullshit my friend .


I don't care if you think you can achieve everything in camera and your lazy ass is not going to spend any time in post - you simply have to color grade EVERY FREAKIN TIME . Except if its documentary or wedding or whatever .

Why ? Sometimes the colors from each scenes are different ,sometimes the light change , the shadows ,whatever . Even if you don't spend the time to make huge stylistic color grading you must spend the time of color correcting ,tweaking the colors etc to make it all smooth and nice .

Of course , you must make the difference between '' fix it in post '' and ''perfect it in post'' and I do believe that you should always try to achieve your look IN CAMERA but then perfect it in post .

 

[Jeff Troiano]

Harmonica44 can you even describe what makes something look "video"? Forget this whole "film" look. Describe to me what you think makes video look video. If you can do that, then I might consider listening to you about what makes something look cinematic.

You're trying to justify your position about post production, but your argument is BS, because I don't think you even know.

 

[WalterB]

Define 'digital look'.

 

[knightly]

I felt that Die Hard (latest one in russia) looked really digital (heavy handed grain throughout) -- it was shot on 35mm film. I could have sworn Skyfall was shot on film... it wasn't.

The "look" is all stylistic choices on the part of the filmmaker. The "film look" (so far as I can tell) is defined by the amount of time and care spent on the project. The better the prep, the shoot and the post, the more cinematic the product. More attention to details, interesting frames with motion in them... wetting down the streets to darken them and add interesting, adding smoke machines under manholes and behind fences to add life and movement to the dead areas of the frame...

Taking the time to wrangle in the dynamic range to make it look less like digital and more like cinema, using color to paint attention and focus, getting every shot "right"; then making it right-er in post. Moving and modifying lights on set (sometimes even when actors are talking - to salvage the rest of a shot that would otherwise have been wasted) to make the image the best it can possibly be. Dealing with the nuance of the Mise En Scene, making sure that everything in frame is where it should be and serves a purpose. Never being "OK" with something - and having dedicated and excited crew that are motivated either artistically or financially to get the best possible everything from their part of the puzzle.

150 people on set for a 2 person dialog on an empty beach, each with a goal and a purpose that they WILL achieve and will take ownership of. Years of experience cross-pollinating one anothers' creativity making new experience that will serve as education for the next productions.

The hallmark of the "Film look" has nothing to do with the camera or the dynamic range, it has everything to do with experience, knowledge, herculean effort, and attention to detail.

 

[CraigL]

It sounds like you're implying that colour grading is something unique and specific to the digital domain, which couldn't be further from the truth. People like Dale Grahn have been grading films with chemicals and timers since forever. The so-called Bleach Bypass look evolved in the chemical world, by literally bypassing the bleaching step that normally strips the silver off the emulsion.

CraigL

 

[rayw]

What do you think?

Best short film I've seen in the last hour → https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuCINfgz7TM



Seriously, tho - SCREW the look until AFTER you've got the story down good to great.

Great visuals didn't save 'Sucker Punch'.
A great cast didn't save 'The Watch'.
A great premise + director didn't save 'Prometheus'.

It's all story, baby.

 

[Jeff Troiano]

As knightly nicely pointed out, there is so much more that goes into making something that looks "cinematic" then just settings on a camera. I've gotten more and more into "indie" film making over the last 3 years, and when I started out, my interests were so broad. I've quickly learned that one man can't do it all. As I've learned more, my area of focus has quickly narrowed down.

 

[harmonica44]

Define 'digital look'.

What I mean is is that a lot short films for example, have a more digital look, than cinematic looking features. A movie doesn't have to be shot on film to look cinematic but their is something different in the color grading that indie filmmakers are doing that looks more digital, compared to high budget features.

For example, every color grading tutorial I looked at on youtube, does not make a lit scene look near as good as you would see in a high budget movie that although is shot on digital, is meant to look more like film.

That is why I suggested don't color grade much at all, cause it seems all the color grading tutorials out there just make the movie look more digital low budget compared to not graded at all, cause at least it looks a bit like older film that way.

 

[jax_rox]

The reason low budget colour grades look like low budget colour grades is precisely because everybody's following the same tutorial.

Get an experienced, professional colourist and he/she will do wonders for you.

I mean if you want that ugly, flat, washed out look - go ahead and don't grade.. Although that's kinda trendy at the moment isn't it..?

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

You can do whatever you want in the grade, more so now than at any time in the past. If there's a look you don't like because it looks too 'digital' (however you define that) then don't do it. Do something else that you do like. Simple.

It seems to me what you're really doing is trying to justify not color grading because you don't know how to do it. If that's the case, fine - don't do it. But don't pretend it has anything to do with a 'digital' look versus a 'film' look.

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

If done well, grading looks cinematic. And if done wrong, it won't.

What do you mean when you say "the look of a 90's movie"? What's a 90's look? There were many different looks in the 90's as there were in all decades. BWP, Pulp Fiction, and the Matrix were made in the 90's. They all had different looks. The images I get right out of my T3i don't look very cinematic. They look dull and washed out without grading.

I have seen many movies from the 2000's that used color grading and look cinematic. H44, I will make a list for you if you'd like.

When directors make a movie, they have a vision in their head of what they want. Color grading is a tool that helps the director get the look and tone he wants.

What do you think?

You have little knowledge about what you're talking about. And by the way, they used color grading in the 90's.

 

[mus]

Honestly, H44, your posts do little more than confuse me anymore.... Not trying to be mean, cuz you're a nice guy....

 

[WalterB]

What I mean is is that a lot short films for example, have a more digital look, than cinematic looking features. A movie doesn't have to be shot on film to look cinematic but their is something different in the color grading that indie filmmakers are doing that looks more digital, compared to high budget features.

For example, every color grading tutorial I looked at on youtube, does not make a lit scene look near as good as you would see in a high budget movie that although is shot on digital, is meant to look more like film.

That is why I suggested don't color grade much at all, cause it seems all the color grading tutorials out there just make the movie look more digital low budget compared to not graded at all, cause at least it looks a bit like older film that way.

You still haven't defined 'digital look' with this explanation.

"more than", "compared to", "not... near as good" without a definition is just sublective blabla without being clear.

Have you considered the fact that it may not be the grading, but the lighting that makes these results so different?