Hello! How to get that "look" on your films and home videos?

[gibbo]

Hey guys,

I'm very new here guys and a complete newbie. This is a great forum and I'm really glad I found it, I have made a few posts but now it's time to bite the bullet and start asking some questions.

I did a search for this first, but honestly I don't know what it's called or how to ask it, but I'll try to explain best I can:

I've been looking at short films posted here and on youtube before I start experimenting with my own short films and what I've noticed is that some just don't look right to me. It's almost like they are fake/too clean and crisp/too smooth and clear. Initially I thought the reason was they were in HD or FullHD but since then I've seen HD/FullHD videos that also DO "look right", which leads me to think that it may be the FPS they are filmed in. Maybe the ones that look right are in 24p to achieve that real film look and the ones that are "not right" are in 60 fps (or higher) or something? Or it could be some post production after effects? I dunno that's the only reason I can think of...

I'm hoping someone knows what I'm talking about and there is an industry name for this.

I'm trying to find some specific examples to show you guys as we speak....

Thanks fellas!

 

[Dreadylocks]

Yeah, see if you can find some examples to put up That would be helpful.

It could be a lot of things. On a basic but important level, framing, scenery, lighting could be what you need to fix. Without seeing your shots, I can only generalize

So, what kind of lighting did you use? Did you use any? Do a google for 3 point lighting, there are many youtube video tutorials on the subject as well.

Framing wise, how did you go about composing your shots? Do you use the rule of thirds? Do you position your camera to give the shot depth (i.e. not just shooting them straight on, with a wall perpendicular to the camera)?

How much effort went into having interesting scenery? Are there relevant props lying around? Do the characters stand out from the background?

Don't worry about shallow DOF or using some effect to get the look you want until you get those three things covered. After effects and the like are best utilized with a well composed and properly lit shot, anyway.

Hope that helps

 

[wheatgrinder]

I was doing some experimenting the other day. On my canon hfs100 with 35mm adapter HD rig, I recorded some footage at 60i. Man it was smooth, sharp and beautiful, but I have to say it did not look like a movie. Even with shallow DOF, lens flares etc.

That said, I was in a store the other day and watched some of blue ray avatar (live action part) on a 3d TV, and that too did not look very movie like.. so I think the 24p thing may EVENTUALLY go away.. but not in this generation.

Ill try and find that footage this weekend and post it..

 

[Landels Film]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming what you're describing is a "filmic look" achieved with digital. In my opinion, there are three technical components taking place inside the camera which are key in achieving this (Note the term "technical", set design, lighting, makeup, etc. are all important as well)....

• 24p Frame Rate
  24 frames per second is the traditional frame rate at which a reel of film is run through a projector. Standard digital video captures 30 frames per second (actually 29.97).
• Shallow Depth of Field
  The effective use of bokeh in a shot with shallow depth of field can create a cinematic look.
• Progressive Scanning
  Standard digital video captures interlaced footage (see 1080i vs 1080p) by taking two stills of a frame at once (one odd horizontal line of an image, and one even horizontal line of an image) and displaying them together to create one image. Progressive scanning displays one image, one frame at a time (more like a photographic stop motion animation).

These are all things to keep in mind, however, as Dreadylocks has already explained... Excellent looking digital video can be achieved without a professional camera.

 

[danjama]

To get a film look, use film. It's fool-proof.

 

[CDCosta]

I think I know what you mean.

As stated above by Landels; Film is run at 24fps because it's most natural to the human eye. Most consumer cameras are at 30fps. 60fps is just recording at twice the speed. Which gives the picture a 'smoother' cleaner look, and less film like.

Lighting, DOF, Prog scan, grain, sensor size, and others are factors as well.

 

[wheatgrinder]

I think I know what you mean.

As stated above by Landels; Film is run at 24fps because it's most natural to the human eye. Most consumer cameras are at 30fps. 60fps is just recording at twice the speed. Which gives the picture a 'smoother' cleaner look, and less film like.

Lighting, DOF, Prog scan, grain, sensor size, and others are factors as well.

I disagree, there is nothing natural about 24fps being appealing, its strictly what we've come to expect. Its currently what we consider "attractive" and like beauty will eventually change over time. Compare Renaissance art to modern fashion mags for what I mean.

That said, we like 24p WITH adequate motion blur. Shot 24p with FAST shutter and you'll get choppy look that will NOT be appealing.

See this for a good example.. even though you cant see 60i on youtube, you can see the difference in motion blur..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSXSwSUKAvo

 

[Zensteve]

Film is run at 24fps because it's most natural to the human eye.

Just a quick correction here:

Film (with sound) is at 24fps because it's the rate which uses the least amount of film while being sync'd to the soundtrack.

Prior to sound, it was common to use 16 to 18 fps, 'cos that was the least amount of film that you could get away with for relatively smooth motion.

We've been trained to view this as normal, but it's really just about cost-management.

 

[wheatgrinder]

Dig that zensteve!

On the same line as why DVD cases are the size they are? Because they fit in the same place as a VHS case, which is exactly half the size of the old record albums. So because you could fit TWO vhs tapes in the same space as ONE LP, dvd cases are the size they are.. its all about the Benjamins.. lol.

 

[NuclearHamster]

I disagree, there is nothing natural about 24fps being appealing, its strictly what we've come to expect. Its currently what we consider "attractive" and like beauty will eventually change over time. Compare Renaissance art to modern fashion mags for what I mean.

That said, we like 24p WITH adequate motion blur. Shot 24p with FAST shutter and you'll get choppy look that will NOT be appealing.

See this for a good example.. even though you cant see 60i on youtube, you can see the difference in motion blur..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSXSwSUKAvo

what's the most appealing shutter speed setting?

 

[powernewbie]

I think the question that gibbo is trying to ask is how to get that "film look" in post in the editing..

it can be ball-parked with color correction, etc, it wont be the exact same thing, but you can get more of a "film feel" to it in the editing..

 

[wheatgrinder]

quick answer, 180deg shutter..

Where E = shutter speed (reciprocal of exposure time in seconds), F = Frames per second, and S = Shutter angle

(sorry, being a smart a@# again!)

1/4 shutter seems to be the most common choice. That translates to different speeds at different frame rates and cameras might not have exactly 1/4 option.

Translated to fractions of a second the most common are... (1/60 is a 180deg shutter at 24p)


* 1/60 s: Used for panning shots, for images taken under dim lighting conditions, and for available light portraits.[9]
* 1/30 s: Used for panning subjects moving slower than 30 miles per hour (48 km/h) and for available light photography. Images taken at this and slower speeds normally require a tripod or other camera support to be sharp.[10]
* 1/15 s and 1/8 s: This and slower speeds are useful for photographs other than panning shots where motion blur is employed for deliberate effect, or for taking sharp photographs of immobile subjects under bad lighting conditions with a tripod-supported camera.[11]

* 1/4 s, 1/2 s and 1 s: Also mainly used for motion blur effects and/or low-light photography, but only practical with a tripod-supported camera.[12]


(or did I get that wrong.. dang, I doubt my self again)

 

[wridingrlm]

Might I say that this forum has a lot of hints for the trade but you have to look around? If you take the time and look at every thread you will more then likely find what you're looking for and MORE. I debated if I should post a link from with in this thread because by doing so I'm not helping you find OTHER HELPFUL BITS OF INFO which might help you down the road. You what the film look and that is it? Do you think you might have other questions in the future about other subjects? Well looking around in different threads might be time consuming but that is what learning is about. Taking the time to understand what is involved in the filmmaking aspect. So I will post a link, but I still feel you will benefit if YOU take the time to look around and learn other things besides achieving the "film look". Now I do expect that you watch and leave a BIG THANK YOU to the person who took the time to make these because they didn't have to. If you don't then it wouldn't surprise me because I had to show you where it was.

Good luck.

link - http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=20008

Sorry for being a snob, but I just felt that you didn't take any time to look around and expect everyone to hold your hand. This was on page 2 in the Cinamatog and Lighting thread. I remember stumbling upon it after two weeks I was here and was grateful for the info and the time Tom took to make these. I hope they help you too.

As for 24p, and this is only from memory so please correct me if I'm wrong, but this mainly only used to transfer vid to film so you don't lose any frames in the conversion process. 24p doesn't make the picture any different. What does make a difference in the field is the lens, lighting, make up, type of camera, DOF and post. EDIT: And for sound to sync up too.

 

[gibbo]

Thanks to all for the replies, I'm sorry I don't know how to explain what it is.

I've been trying to look for examples for you guys, I did find one, it's not really exactly what I'm talking about but it's pretty close:

if you go to 1:48 until 2:01 in this video it has "that look", afterwards, from 2:02 until 2:13 it doesn't have "that look", see how the 2:02 - 2:13 looks amateurish?

(EDIT: Sorry guys I put the wrong video in, now it's the right one!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qtU-adExkM


As I said not exactly what I mean, I'm still trying to find examples to post up.


@ dreadylocks: I havn't actually shot anything yet, I just want to get this questions straightened out before I buy a camera as I want to ensure I get one that doesn't make my stuff look too amatuerish!

I was doing some experimenting the other day. On my canon hfs100 with 35mm adapter HD rig, I recorded some footage at 60i. Man it was smooth, sharp and beautiful, but I have to say it did not look like a movie. Even with shallow DOF, lens flares etc.

That said, I was in a store the other day and watched some of blue ray avatar (live action part) on a 3d TV, and that too did not look very movie like.. so I think the 24p thing may EVENTUALLY go away.. but not in this generation.

Ill try and find that footage this weekend and post it..

Avatar still does still have the 24p judder, the TV where you watched it probably had frame interpolation gimmick on with other image processing/enhancement settings on. I'm almost certain that it's not a matter of 60i vs 24p because i've seen films that are at 50i and they still have "that look"

It would be GREAT if you could post that footage!

Might I say that this forum has a lot of hints for the trade but you have to look around? If you take the time and look at every thread you will more then likely find what you're looking for and MORE. I debated if I should post a link from with in this thread because by doing so I'm not helping you find OTHER HELPFUL BITS OF INFO which might help you down the road. You what the film look and that is it? Do you think you might have other questions in the future about other subjects? Well looking around in different threads might be time consuming but that is what learning is about. Taking the time to understand what is involved in the filmmaking aspect. So I will post a link, but I still feel you will benefit if YOU take the time to look around and learn other things besides achieving the "film look". Now I do expect that you watch and leave a BIG THANK YOU to the person who took the time to make these because they didn't have to. If you don't then it wouldn't surprise me because I had to show you where it was.

Good luck.

link - http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=20008

Sorry for being a snob, but I just felt that you didn't take any time to look around and expect everyone to hold your hand. This was on page 2 in the Cinamatog and Lighting thread. I remember stumbling upon it after two weeks I was here and was grateful for the info and the time Tom took to make these. I hope they help you too.

As for 24p, and this is only from memory so please correct me if I'm wrong, but this mainly only used to transfer vid to film so you don't lose any frames in the conversion process. 24p doesn't make the picture any different. What does make a difference in the field is the lens, lighting, make up, type of camera, DOF and post. EDIT: And for sound to sync up too.

Hmmm, thanks. Adding to what I directed at dreadylocks previously, I have no issues with reading and finding stuff out on my own, I just want to get a camera ASAP and start experimenting with it, but I dont want to find out that I got the wrong one and that it doesnt have "that look" that I have been trying to explain. So i figured that I'd ask here first and hit that nail on the head first then slowly figure out the other stuff.

I did try to search first but honestly speaking "that look vs not that look" didn't return many results (AKA I have no f'n idea what i'm talking about )

Sorry if I offended anyone

 

[gibbo]

Believe it or not I've been searching everyday for examples to compare for you guys, I've only just now found a couple I can use (in addition to the BMW video in my previous post)

This video was an entry for an Ecstasy awareness competition we had going in Australia recently, see how it has a professional look to it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9SUdSwH3uQ


Another example of what I'm talking about is, This short movie shot on RED ONE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xSj-fKnZ3g&feature=player_embedded - Although it's a great video it just looks different to, say, District 9 which was also shot on the RED ONE (i think) - I know the two films are completely different animals I'm just trying to give as many examples as I can with the different looks, I think the BMW example in my previous post is the best direct comparison so far.

THank you guys so much!

 

[wheatgrinder]

That ex video was all slo-mo.
Additionally I saw:
Vignetting
High contrast
Shallow Depth Of Field
Good shot composition
Blue gel lighting (check 0:37)
Mostly 2 point lighting is my guess

Its called cinematography like "photography" but with moving images.. .
it aint magic, but it is art, and will take me an you lots of practice. So start by tweaking your home movies with lighting..

 

[wheatgrinder]

here,
Pick one shot from one of the videos that has the "look" you think you must have, and using the tools you currently have try and get that look. It might take a while, but you have to DO and not Talk or you wont have the right questions to ask.

Thanks my advice, worth every cent you paid for it.

 

[gibbo]

That ex video was all slo-mo.
Additionally I saw:
Vignetting
High contrast
Shallow Depth Of Field
Good shot composition
Blue gel lighting (check 0:37)
Mostly 2 point lighting is my guess

Its called cinematography like "photography" but with moving images.. .
it aint magic, but it is art, and will take me an you lots of practice. So start by tweaking your home movies with lighting..

If it's mostly 2 point or other forms of lighting, What about outdoor scenes during a bright day that are already extremely well lit? Some of my example videos have outdoor scenes like that that don't have "that look"

And in that BMW comparison video, it looks like they used the same lighting but the 2 styles of video are completely different!

(don't mean to be rude or anything just trying to figure it all out)

here,
Pick one shot from one of the videos that has the "look" you think you must have, and using the tools you currently have try and get that look. It might take a while, but you have to DO and not Talk or you wont have the right questions to ask.

Thanks my advice, worth every cent you paid for it.

Again, Thanks for the help!

I don't have any equipment yet, I'm going to buy a camera very soon but want to cover this first so I don't get the wrong camera that doesnt give "that look" - Once I figure this out I can get a camera and start experimenting with my ideas!

Robert Rodriguez's El Mariachi sort of has that look i'm referring to, so does clerks which are both ultra low budget films. I don't know much about clerks but I know in El Mariachi Rodriguez didn't really know what he was doing and still achieved something with a really nice look, which leads me back to thinking that the type of camera plays huge roll as well?

 

[Cracker Funk]

if you go to 1:48 until 2:01 in this video it has "that look", afterwards, from 2:02 until 2:13 it doesn't have "that look", see how the 2:02 - 2:13 looks amateurish?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "that look". Only big difference that jumped out at me, between the two timeframes in this example is in shot composition. From 2:02 - 2:13, the car is framed smack-dab dead-center, with lots of open space around it, and that's boring. Also, they used a zoom, which I hate.

 

[wheatgrinder]

get any modern HiDef cam that shoots 24p, the rest is up to you.