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

G

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!
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
I dont think this is accurate..

I know in El Mariachi Rodriguez didn't really know what he was doing and still achieved something with a really nice look
Click to expand...

If you listen to the directors cometary for that movie, you see he knew exactly what he was doing. That is why it has that "look" ... Your implication is that the "look" is an accident, I assure you its not. Its planing and hard work. El Mariachi was shot on film, not video. All the dialog was recorded separately, which explains some of the strange cutting, to keep the out of sync lips out of the screen..
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Full agreement with wheatgrinder. I don't think you need to watch the commentary. Just watch the movie. That dude knew very much what he was doing, and from what I've heard, he did a whole lot of prep-work.

And while I'm agreeing with wheat, I forgot to mention that I also agree with an earlier comment you made about 24p. It's not that it looks better -- it's that we're used to it, and expect it. A couple decades from now, maybe, people will be expecting 100p. OK, maybe that's ridiculous, but you get my point.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
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.
Click to expand...

Really, I might be going crazy but the difference is like night and day to me! In that video, 1:48 - 2:01 looks like a proper film/movie, whereas 2:02 - 2:13 looks like a home movie, it actually looks like a regualr guy was just watching it from the side lines and filmed it on his handycam....

wheatgrinder said:
I dont think this is accurate..



If you listen to the directors cometary for that movie, you see he knew exactly what he was doing. That is why it has that "look" ... Your implication is that the "look" is an accident, I assure you its not. Its planing and hard work. El Mariachi was shot on film, not video. All the dialog was recorded separately, which explains some of the strange cutting, to keep the out of sync lips out of the screen..
Click to expand...

i'm getting the DVD next week just for the commentary actually. But in his book all he mentioned was his few el cheapo lights and his trusty old light metre. He openly admits to not really knowing what he was doing or even what the settings on the camera meant.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
gibbo said:
Really, I might be going crazy but the difference is like night and day to me! In that video, 1:48 - 2:01 looks like a proper film/movie, whereas 2:02 - 2:13 looks like a home movie, it actually looks like a regualr guy was just watching it from the side lines and filmed it on his handycam....
Click to expand...

Yeah. I just said -- poor shot composition, and heavy use of zoom. That's what regular dudes do, shooting it from their handicams.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I don't know, but in the BWM clip “The Look” might be exposure, filters, color correction, lighting and at 1:49 – 2:01 possibly cutting in footage from a Panavision 35mm (Or Super 35) with great glass and someone with a lot of experience at the helm.

-Thanks-
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
wheatgrinder said:
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..
Click to expand...

Thats for bring lighting to my attention, I couldn't see how lighting can make such a difference, so I went searching for 2 point lighting and cound't find much. I found quite a bit on 3 point lighting, 2 point lighting is the same as 3 point without the fill light?

I stumbled accross this short film, which to me sort of has "that look" and sort of doesn't, but I am beginning to see that lighting is what is responsible for giving it what it has of "that look"

0:31 - 0:43 uses 2 point lighting correct? No Fill light...

wheatgrinder said:
If you have a light meter, you know what your doing. He might not have been 100% on all aspects, but he planned, rehearsed and executed every shot on that movie. It shows.
Click to expand...

Ok fair enough. What about indoor moving shots? do you get 3 people to move with the subject holding the 3 point light setup?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
hum good question about lighting a moving shot, to date Im a theoretician! Iv only made mini movies bits and pieces.

I have seen outtakes where a guy is holding a china ball on a boom and following the actors.. so..

I think the answer is yes\no\maybe depending on what your trying to do. There is the idea that light should be motivated, meaning that having light just "be there" is not optimal, so to get three point lighting in a motivated way, you stage practical light.. the camera doesn't have to see it, but we can infer that the big KEY light is the window just to the left of the frame, that the fill is provided by the desk lamp just to the right and the kicker is from an overhead fixture.. just above.. or some such.

Your idea of analyzing shots is great, stick with it. Simplify your effort by picking ONE SHOT from a sequence and breaking it down as far as you can. A picture (one frame) is worth a thousand words, then 7 seconds, typical shot length, is worth (24*7) frames *1000 or 168,000 words!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
wheatgrinder said:
hum good question about lighting a moving shot, to date Im a theoretician! Iv only made mini movies bits and pieces.

I have seen outtakes where a guy is holding a china ball on a boom and following the actors.. so..

I think the answer is yes\no\maybe depending on what your trying to do. There is the idea that light should be motivated, meaning that having light just "be there" is not optimal, so to get three point lighting in a motivated way, you stage practical light.. the camera doesn't have to see it, but we can infer that the big KEY light is the window just to the left of the frame, that the fill is provided by the desk lamp just to the right and the kicker is from an overhead fixture.. just above.. or some such.
Click to expand...

So making use of natural and/or lighting already available?

Your idea of analyzing shots is great, stick with it. Simplify your effort by picking ONE SHOT from a sequence and breaking it down as far as you can. A picture (one frame) is worth a thousand words, then 7 seconds, typical shot length, is worth (24*7) frames *1000 or 168,000 words!
Click to expand...

Thanks..... I think.... :D

I'm not exactly sure what I'm doing, can you explain a little more and I'll glady keep doing it!? :huh: lol

Also, could you explain a little more about 2 point lighting? I tried to google it but 3 point lighting came up.. there doesn't appear to be much on 2 point lighting at all.

DOF and lighting all make sense as being the main contributors to getting "that look" but in regards to DOF:What about shots in movies where the people are standing directly in front of a wall and there is no real background far away (depth) in the shot?

And in regards to lighting: What about shots in broad daylight on sunny days, or on dark night/low lit shots?

Plus I've seen plenty of shots with blurry backgrounds that don't have "that look"!!

This is driving me nuts!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A lot has already been covered in this thread, but I'll throw in my two cents if you don't mind.

You're not going to get the look of 'film' unless you:

1. Use a camera that has interchangable lenses--the lenses are what will give you the depth of field (blurry background, in-focus subject "bokeh"). This is the first step into creating that 'film look.' You can do this in post if you're skilled enough, but it's not easy, especially to make look natural.

2. Color correct and grade your film like the pros. Color grading is a great way to give you that Hollywood look. However, this does not mean you should just toss a thick orange, green or blue grade over your entire film. This is the bane of many indie filmmakers that think a grade will cover up their lack of lighting design and overall production value instead of counting on hard work and technique.

There really isn't anything you can do when shooting on HD cams with infinite focus lenses--your film is going to have a video look regardless. The best thing you can do in these cases is to have skill as a filmmaker and shoot a quality image. If you know how to light a scene properly (I mean properly, not just 'I can see everything'), if you know how to compose a shot, if you know how to use a tripod, if you know how to record good audio...then the audience isn't going to care if your film is video looking. As long as the shot is crisp and *in focus*, you have a good script and good actors, you don't need DOF and major grading.

I'll give an example. This is a trailer from a group of friends of mine that I work with from time to time...they are very talented and getting better and better all the time. Their first feature film DEATHFORCE is a perfect example of a film that is WAY too color graded. Yes, there are some very cool shots and colors, but it's a typical example of going overboard with color grading: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjPBFj756P8 (if any of the 12 Gauge team sees this post, I apologize. You know I love you guys and think DF is a fun action indie flick)

The director I work with mostly uses a JVC 3ccd 720 HD cam, and he never uses different lenses. He sticks with the infinite focus lens on his camera, which is nice, but doesn't produce DOF unless you're far away from your subject and zoom in. However, he is the most semi-successful indie filmmaker I know. His films are always nationally distributed, and he makes a profit. No DOF...No color grading. Just good old fashion solid filmmaking with actual technique and skill.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Maybe this was already addressed, don't feel like reading through all the posts at the moment.. but you're not quite right here..
wheatgrinder said:
quick answer, 180deg shutter..
Translated to fractions of a second the most common are... (1/60 is a 180deg shutter at 24p)
Click to expand...
To figure the shutter speed for a 180 degree shutter, take the frame rate * 2, and make that the denominator of a fraction..

so a 180degree shutter at 24p is actually 1/48, not 1/60..

If you're shooting 60 frames/second it would be 1/120 unless you're shooting 60i which is actually more like 30p since an interlaced field (the i in 60i) is only half the image information, whereas 30p is 30 complete frames per second, 60i is 60 half frames per second. Your mileage may vary of course, if you shoot 60i at 1/60 you'll likely end up with funky motion artifacts.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think what he's asking for is color correction.
In the video he showed us, it looks amatuer after 2:02 because it is almost raw footage without color correction.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top