How many different looks can be achieved with Digital?

H

HunterF

I'm a complete noob when it comes to cameras. I know for sure that I'm going to be filming on digital, so I'm curious about the range of looks and textures that can be achieved on the format. So far that only digital camera that I've done a lot of filming with is my iPhone, which I actually think captures really nice footage but it's obviously no where near high res enough for a feature film.

I was watching Inland Empire by David Lynch and while I think the look of that movie works well for what he was going for, I also think it looks way too digital, if that makes any sense. Do all digital cameras create that same look, or is that just caused by the particular one he used?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
The look also depends on the colour grade, lighting set up and the lenses which are used. Arguably by most experienced DPs it is obvious when a digital camera has been used. I haven't seen Inland Empire but not every digital film would look like that, but there are elements that are specific to digital
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Unlike the days of film where brand and type of camera didn't matter - it was the stock that gave the film it's look, these days every brand and model of camera is like a stock. Every different works a slightly different way, every different camera has a different post workflow, and every different camera has a different look to it.

With digital, there are a range of options and a rang of different 'looks' available to you, ranging from cheap and 'ugly' to expensive and 'beautiful'.
The other aspect that comes in here is colour grading - you can achieve a number of different looks from a number of different cameras depending on how you colour grade a film.

I personally hate Inland Empire, but the camera that Lynch used was a prosumer-grade camera, designed for event and wedding type videography, not really designed for cinema or even television (perhaps low-end television). Keep in mind it was shot over a number of years, and at the time camera technology wasn't anywhere near where it is now - before the advent of RED, digital was seen as a somewhat lower cost option of capture for television, and perhaps some lower budget films.

Nowadays, you can still get similar cameras that look very digital, but you are also presented with a number of different options, with large sensors that can look great. Digital acquisition is taking over Hollywood. REDs were used to shoot The Hobbit, Girl with a Dragon Tattoo, The Social Network and many others. Arri Alexa is the hot favourite of Hollywood at the moment and is being used to shoot everything from Pitch Perfect to Hugo to Abe Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, and even television drama like The Newsroom.
Movies like Collateral were shot on a Thompson Grass Valley Viper, and Panavision Genesis was used quite a lot before the advent of Alexa.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
MileCreations said:
Arguably by most experienced DPs it is obvious when a digital camera has been used.
Click to expand...

In general, yes. You can pick digital vs film, and in general film looks way better. However, with a lot of the Alexa releases, I'd challenge you to pick the difference between it and film, had you not known beforehand. Especially once there's a bit of 35mm grain over the top. There are still differences, but Alexa vs film is much less of a difference than say RED vs film (film still holds everything better though, at least IMO).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
HunterF said:
it's obviously no where near high res enough for a feature film.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that a camera's resolution has very little to do with whether a feature film can be made, or not.

I saw a film at the 2012 Lake Arrowhead Film Festival that was shot entirely on an iPhone cellphone, just like your phone.

Bells & whistles can be great, but there's no reason why we can't use the tools we have if we really want to make that film.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Zensteve said:
I would suggest that a camera's resolution has very little to do with whether a feature film can be made, or not.

I saw a film at the 2012 Lake Arrowhead Film Festival that was shot entirely on an iPhone cellphone, just like your phone.

Bells & whistles can be great, but there's no reason why we can't use the tools we have if we really want to make that film.
Click to expand...

Interesting. This film was shown in a theatre? Cause I find when I blow my iPhone footage up to fit my 26" computer monitor is looks noticeably less crisp than it does on my small phone screen. I can't even imagine how blurry it would look on a full-sized big screen
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
jax_rox said:
In general, yes. You can pick digital vs film, and in general film looks way better. However, with a lot of the Alexa releases, I'd challenge you to pick the difference between it and film, had you not known beforehand. Especially once there's a bit of 35mm grain over the top. There are still differences, but Alexa vs film is much less of a difference than say RED vs film (film still holds everything better though, at least IMO).
Click to expand...

I in no way yet have the eye for it and am only able to pick it up on occasion, so a film with a 35mm grade would probably be not picked up by myself anyway.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
HunterF said:
Interesting. This film was shown in a theatre? Cause I find when I blow my iPhone footage up to fit my 26" computer monitor is looks noticeably less crisp than it does on my small phone screen. I can't even imagine how blurry it would look on a full-sized big screen
Click to expand...

Sometimes it depends on how well lit everything has been, not to mention which iPhone generation you have
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
HunterF said:
Interesting. This film was shown in a theatre? Cause I find when I blow my iPhone footage up to fit my 26" computer monitor is looks noticeably less crisp than it does on my small phone screen. I can't even imagine how blurry it would look on a full-sized big screen
Click to expand...

A smaller screen, but sure. Probably look pretty terrible on an Imax screen, but whatcha doin' that for to start with? More wrong tools for the wrong problem.

Fwiw, I have a 14' diagonal which I project plain ol' 720x480 DVDs onto, and it looks pretty good.

At any rate - that wasn't my point, which was that it's not so much the actual camera that makes a film watchable.

Heh. I'm ramblin'. :blush:

I also think it looks way too digital, if that makes any sense
Click to expand...

In other news, you can a similar video-ish look in many 2d versions of 3d films, where they've really elongated the back of the frame. Like in Captain America, running through the tunnels of Red Skull Lair... or in Prometheus, shooting from one far side of the alien cockpit-room to the other. Pops weirdly out of place.

I'll stop now. Ramble's outta control. :bag:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
HunterF said:
Interesting. This film was shown in a theatre? Cause I find when I blow my iPhone footage up to fit my 26" computer monitor is looks noticeably less crisp than it does on my small phone screen. I can't even imagine how blurry it would look on a full-sized big screen
Click to expand...

This is why in the digital world, shooting format is often decided upon dependent upon the final delivery. If you are delivering for a cinema screen (especially IMAX), you don't want to shoot on an iPhone or 5D (though some do use DSLR for cinema screens, it's not the greatest choice for it..).
If you're shooting for the web, a 5D or iPhone would be perfectly fine.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top