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!

 

[wheatgrinder]

yeah, seems everyone I talk to, even experienced directors and DP's use the terms interchangeably.... color grading, color correcting, its all subjective anyway.. whats "correct" to one eye.. and what "graded" to another.. meh..

I say "color matching" which I think in the industry is analogous to first pass color grading, where your just trying to get all the shots to look the same, exposure, WB, etc.. and "color for style and look" which is the "adding an artistic color element"... but I me, and I just talk to myself anyway

 

[Will Vincent]

Aside from color correction, the difference is the first part is actual finished, edited footage for the spot.. the second part is behind the scenes making-of stuff.. of course that isn't going to look as cinematic, it's not supposed to.

 

[M1chae1]

yeah, seems everyone I talk to, even experienced directors and DP's use the terms interchangeably.... color grading, color correcting, its all subjective anyway.. whats "correct" to one eye.. and what "graded" to another.. meh..

I say "color matching" which I think in the industry is analogous to first pass color grading, where your just trying to get all the shots to look the same, exposure, WB, etc.. and "color for style and look" which is the "adding an artistic color element"... but I me, and I just talk to myself anyway

Well...maybe in the indie world. With people that know what a colorist is, they aren't going to confuse the two. Best to understand the difference now.

Color correcting is fixing the blues of a sky or the tone of a persons skin, or the green of the trees--and yes, making sure all the shots look like they belong in the same movie. Scene by scene, shot by shot.

Grading, however, is creating an overall color or tone to the film (still shot by shot), ala The Matrix's green look. Big difference. Art direction and grading go hand in hand.

 

[M1chae1]

yeah, my bad, its Color Grading. Makes your Footage stand out rather than just look flat.

I apologize for the correction again, but this isn't done with grading...this is done with lights, focus, and composition--mostly lighting and focus.

 

[wheatgrinder]

geeze M1chae1,
Your feeling very humble today... Did you just win some big award thats making you all magnanimous and stuff... JK'.. Your always pleasant.

 

[gibbo]

I came into this thread to post a video I came across and saw all these replies! It appears I didn't get email notification for them, thanks you guys so much. I don't have time to read it just now as I'm heading out but I will read them soon, thanks again.

SO anyway, here's the video I found, what do you guys think about it?

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

 

[M1chae1]

Wow Gibbo...it blows me me away that kids this age are teaching people how to make films. Jesus. I mean no disrespect at all, but this is one of the reasons older more veteran film makers are frustrated. These kids are stealing all their jobs!!! lol.

I think you have to be wary of crushing your blacks *too* much, and putting too much grade on your footage. I think the finished footage looks way better than the original, so kudos there...I'm just saying a lot of amateurs will over-do it, and it's annoying.

I'd like to see a little more step-by-step detail, as in, show people how to do this with exact settings. It doesn't help someone to see this, if they don't know how you're doing it. Remember, some people don't even know where to find 'Contrast' in FCP.

 

[gibbo]

Wow Gibbo...it blows me me away that kids this age are teaching people how to make films. Jesus. I mean no disrespect at all, but this is one of the reasons older more veteran film makers are frustrated. These kids are stealing all their jobs!!! lol.

I think you have to be wary of crushing your blacks *too* much, and putting too much grade on your footage. I think the finished footage looks way better than the original, so kudos there...I'm just saying a lot of amateurs will over-do it, and it's annoying.

I'd like to see a little more step-by-step detail, as in, show people how to do this with exact settings. It doesn't help someone to see this, if they don't know how you're doing it. Remember, some people don't even know where to find 'Contrast' in FCP.

OK fair enough, But for someone like me who knows absolutely nothing about it, it's a good start isn't it?

And I did stumble accross another video that shows the same thing, but in detail on how to do it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL3rGFU6VMY

(BTW i'm still to read the other replies)

 

[wheatgrinder]

GIBBO! !!! !
NO NOT GOOD ENOUGH !!!

TRY AGAIN, THIS TIME WITH FEELING! !!! !



Nothing like teaching a topic your self to really hammer home whats REALLY going on..

 

[gibbo]

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.

Thank you Michael, 2 things though:

1) 3ccd is a technology from JVC? Do you know what model camera he uses?
2) Is any of his work available to watch online anywhere? Obviously I don't mean full movies but at least trailers or something? I am very interested to see his work

Thanks for all the replies.

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.

hmmm ok...

thats kinda what I was thinking too..

during the editing, color correction, adding blur, softening, etc..

But how can it be softened but still stay sharp at the same time (full HD stuff)

GIBBO! !!! !
NO NOT GOOD ENOUGH !!!

TRY AGAIN, THIS TIME WITH FEELING! !!! !



Nothing like teaching a topic your self to really hammer home whats REALLY going on..

Huh? Am I doing something wrong here?

 

[Cracker Funk]

gibbo, a ccd is a chip that picks up light on your videocamera -- the good video cameras have 3 of them, to pick up more light (in a nutshell). However, a 3ccd HDV cam (without special modifications) will not be able to get the narrow depth of field that M1chea1 is equating with the "film look" (also, 24p is worth mentioning). And yet, here he has a friend who is successful at this indie filmmaking level, without doing anything to attain the "film look". I believe M1chea1's main point to be that it is story that comes first -- you can be successful without the best equipment, if you can just tell a good story.

Also, wheatgrinder is just messing with you; no, you haven't done anything wrong. We like to have fun on these boards.

 

[gibbo]

gibbo, a ccd is a chip that picks up light on your videocamera -- the good video cameras have 3 of them, to pick up more light (in a nutshell). However, a 3ccd HDV cam (without special modifications) will not be able to get the narrow depth of field that M1chea1 is equating with the "film look" (also, 24p is worth mentioning). And yet, here he has a friend who is successful at this indie filmmaking level, without doing anything to attain the "film look". I believe M1chea1's main point to be that it is story that comes first -- you can be successful without the best equipment, if you can just tell a good story.

So I guess any decent camera that does 24p at at least 720p with decent lighting will do and you can do the rest in post editing?

Also, wheatgrinder is just messing with you; no, you haven't done anything wrong. We like to have fun on these boards.

Oh ok, I thought so just wasn't sure

 

[M1chae1]

So I guess any decent camera that does 24p at at least 720p with decent lighting will do and you can do the rest in post editing?

You can produce a quality (sell-able, marketable) film on any medium if you have the skill as a filmmaker, a solid script, and a quality cast. However take all these things I mention above, and add high quality HD (at least 720p), or film, and you are going to improve your chances of creating a 'better film.' What do I mean by 'better?' Well, I guess that's subjective, but basically it will means the image quality will be nicer, the cinematography will have a much higher quality format backing it, and distributors or networks are more likely to pick it up for their catalogs.

I would suggest getting a camera that does at least 720p. If you can afford it, you can go 1080p, 2K, 4K, whatever. But personally I'd say at least 720p.

Much more important to your film than resolution, is your ability to direct, shoot, edit, write, cast good actors, record solid sound, and compose music that sounds 'big' and is appropriate.

And you don't want to compensate for a crappy medium or low quality production value by 'fixing it in post' or grading the shit out of it. Start with a high quality image, creative thinking, and blood sweat and tears...then worry about what you can do in post.

Cheers.

 

[gibbo]

You can produce a quality (sell-able, marketable) film on any medium if you have the skill as a filmmaker, a solid script, and a quality cast. However take all these things I mention above, and add high quality HD (at least 720p), or film, and you are going to improve your chances of creating a 'better film.' What do I mean by 'better?' Well, I guess that's subjective, but basically it will means the image quality will be nicer, the cinematography will have a much higher quality format backing it, and distributors or networks are more likely to pick it up for their catalogs.

I would suggest getting a camera that does at least 720p. If you can afford it, you can go 1080p, 2K, 4K, whatever. But personally I'd say at least 720p.

Much more important to your film than resolution, is your ability to direct, shoot, edit, write, cast good actors, record solid sound, and compose music that sounds 'big' and is appropriate.

And you don't want to compensate for a crappy medium or low quality production value by 'fixing it in post' or grading the shit out of it. Start with a high quality image, creative thinking, and blood sweat and tears...then worry about what you can do in post.

Cheers.

Thanks again, Michael.

I guess my main issue is that I don't want to get a camera that makes my work look more amateur that it is! I want it to have as much as a professional look as possible.

If you compare raw footage shot on the canon XH-A1 from youtube, to footage from Crank: High voltage (which was shot on canon XH-A1's) you can see a big difference! Likewise with the other camera used in Crank High voltage, the canon HF10. So there must be a lot of post done to give it a professional film look.

BTW, Can I see any of your friends work that you mentioned earlier? even trailers?

 

[chilipie]

I guess my main issue is that I don't want to get a camera that makes my work look more amateur that it is! I want it to have as much as a professional look as possible.

If you compare raw footage shot on the canon XH-A1 from youtube, to footage from Crank: High voltage (which was shot on canon XH-A1's) you can see a big difference! Likewise with the other camera used in Crank High voltage, the canon HF10. So there must be a lot of post done to give it a professional film look.

Do you not think a lot of this might be down to pre-production work and what's actually there on set? You could be shooting with a 15 perf 70mm IMAX camera, but if you don't put the effort into designing the sets, costumes, makeup and lighting then you're completely wasting your time. You're comparing highly compressed raw footage from amateurs with completely polished stuff shot by pros - of course the latter will look better, even without the work they did in post.

 

[Dreadylocks]

Do you not think a lot of this might be down to pre-production work and what's actually there on set? You could be shooting with a 15 perf 70mm IMAX camera, but if you don't put the effort into designing the sets, costumes, makeup and lighting then you're completely wasting your time. You're comparing highly compressed raw footage from amateurs with completely polished stuff shot by pros - of course the latter will look better, even without the work they did in post.

^^^This.

Lighting. Blocking. Mise en Scene.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Many factors involved like frame rate, lighting, shutter speed, lighting, DOF, lighting, focal length of lenses used, lighting.

 

[gibbo]

Do you not think a lot of this might be down to pre-production work and what's actually there on set? You could be shooting with a 15 perf 70mm IMAX camera, but if you don't put the effort into designing the sets, costumes, makeup and lighting then you're completely wasting your time. You're comparing highly compressed raw footage from amateurs with completely polished stuff shot by pros - of course the latter will look better, even without the work they did in post.

Many factors involved like frame rate, lighting, shutter speed, lighting, DOF, lighting, focal length of lenses used, lighting.

Thanks guys.

I know alot of people say lighting is a big factor, And I can understand how it plays a massive factor indoors, but what about outdoor shots where just the light from the sun is used?

 

[chilipie]

I know alot of people say lighting is a big factor, And I can understand how it plays a massive factor indoors, but what about outdoor shots where just the light from the sun is used?

Well, often enough it isn't just the sun used - hugely powerful daylight balanced lamps called HMIs are often used for exterior shots, along with flags (to cut out light), silks (to diffuse and soften light) and reflectors and bounce boards (I hope these last two are fairly obvious).

Even with none of this equipment - the HMIs are out, but getting some bounce in there would be useful - you still need to make a conscious decision about which time of day you shoot to get the sun in the right place in the sky. You might want it to look like a cold early morning, under harsh midday sun or in a golden sunset. All of these effects will require you to pay attention to sunset and sunrise times, and maybe scout the location at the right time to see if it gives you the look you want.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Also, after watching some submissions from people (who wanted to screen their movie with mine) make sure to watch out for things that scream "amateur hour" like crossing the line (without a good reason) and zooming.