What gives a film that "film look"?

[Liv]

I'm sorry this is such a broad question. By "film look", I don't necessarily mean something that looks as if it was shot on film, but rather something that looks like it could play in theaters (whether it be digital or traditional)

I was watching a few short films on YouTube the other day, and I noticed that none of them really had that "film look". I couldn't quite put my finger on what it was about them; they were all sharp, high definition, had obvious color correction (maybe a bit too much) and sounded fine. Nonetheless though, I couldn't picture any of them playing in a movie theater. Something was simply "off". Below are some random short films I picked to illustrate my point (note: I am NOT saying these films are bad; I actually enjoyed watching them)

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sdbaD8OOxfA
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JFDAvcwDPTA
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=17IyGPJuH0g

Could someone enlighten me on this? Why is it that even when a lot of the same tools are used, you can tell almost immediately whether a film is movie-theater quality (even small art-house quality) or something only suitable for YouTube (an amateur film)? What is it about that sense you get within seconds of watching a film that tells you "I should check my local theaters to see if this movie's playing" or "this couldn't play in a movie theater." Is this a problem with the actual footage? Or is it something about post production

Thanks!!

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

Good audio. Audio does not seem like it has a huge impact on the visual elements of the film, but it does. Audio complements the visuals and can make a scene twice as good if done well. Even if the viewers do not notice it, clean and sharp audio is really going to impress.

Camera use and settings is also important. In order to make your film "cinematic looking", you should have in focus, properly exposed, and smooth shots.

Light is important as well. If you do not light your scene well, you will have to jack your ISO up, which will cause noise, which will lead to ugly looking images.

Having a look in mind is important as well. Don't just be throwing around cool shots and Matrix like color grading for the hell of it. Have motivation behind your camera movement, lighting, and grading. Color correction is the process of correcting flaws in the image, matching up shots, and making the image look more clean and acceptable, which really helps if you will be grading. Color grading is used to further push the idea of time, location, temperature, and mood of the film. A good colorist will do this subtly. If you go overboard, or try to get a look because it will look "cool", it probably will not end up very impressive. Watching any film, there is some type of motivation behind the grading.

So properly setting up your camera, having motivation behind the look of the film, and capturing than mixing decent audio is what is going to give you the "film look". Also, check out this thread:

http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=49155

From past threads, it sounds like you are starting out. Just remember that story is the most important thing in your film. Focus on writing good scripts and directing your actors well.

 

[Sweetie]

You can buy some footage that you can overlay over your films to do some cheap simulation of the celluloid & sometimes the scratchy look, though it's unlikely that what you saw emulated film.

It's more likely what you saw just had high production value.

 

[jax_rox]

I think it really comes down to experience in making films.

There are plenty of people on YouTube who have never been on a professional set, never seen a professional DP light, never experienced what it's like to be on, be a part of and make images that are of a professional quality.

That's fine. But some people have this misguided notion that they'll buy a DSLR, watch a couple of FilmRiot vids and then that will allow them to make a cinema-quality masterpiece.

It's simply untrue.

It's the whole process - not just the camera, but the audio, the Production Design, and the entire post process, including sound design and mix.

Give a professional crew semi-pro (or sometimes, even perhaps what one might classify as 'amateur') gear and they'll still give you awesome looking results.

Give a newbie an Alexa, a 788T, an Avid Editing Studio and a Mixing/Dubbing stage (without the experts to run it) and their film will still look and sound like sh*t.

Most YT short films are not lit properly, not colour-graded properly, and either have terrible audio or simply passable audio.

It's not the use of lights etc. - it's the little things that you only pick up by working on professional sets. Such as, how to match lighting on reverse shots where the real lighting is naturally completely different, but on screen should look as if it matches. How to match shots - reverses are generally distance and angle matched, which is why they cut together seamlessly. Many YouTube filmmakers would not even realise that distance matching reverse shots is even a thing.

I think a big difference is also that even on professional low-budget or indie sets, where you're trying to squeeze everything you can out of the budget, but are still making something worthy of cinema - you're working with people who understand making movies - who understand that sometimes there are things that you simply have to spend money on.
Where a YT filmmaker would simply go out in the street and shoot, a professional filmmaker is going to push his contacts to get an HMI and a generator, and even if they can't do that, a professional DP will use reflectors, diffusion frames, as well as lots of negative fill to get a frame that's a bit more interesting and that looks a lot better.

Professional filmmakers also understand that a professional colour grade and audio mix is pretty essential - and needs to be done by someone who knows what they're doing, not simply someone who's read a couple of tutorials online.




That's not to say that all YouTube filmmakers are as I've described, but many are, and perhaps that's part of the reason why you have the observations you do.

 

[Liv]

These are some really amazing answers guys; although all of you make it seem mind numbingly difficult! (and probably rightly so )

On a completely 'unrelated' topic, how much cinematography does a director need to know anyways? I understand that a director should know the basics of every crew members job, from sound mixers to set designers. But I'm curious as to how far a directors knowledge of cinematography should go. Though more is merrier in this case, what would you say is the average amount of cinematographic knowledge a director can possess and still be competent at his/her job?

Thanks again everyone!!

 

[sfoster]

a director absolutely must understand editing, or you will produce footage that cannot be edited together properly.

the more independent you are, the more you need to understand. If you have a professional DP to pick up the slack, obviously you can lean on him a bit. If it's you behind the camera, you need to know everything you can

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

a director absolutely must understand editing, or you will produce footage that cannot be edited together properly.

the more independent you are, the more you need to understand. If you have a professional DP to pick up the slack, obviously you can lean on him a bit. If it's you behind the camera, you need to know everything you can

+1

 

[Alcove Audio]

The essence of that big budget look and sound is, well, that big budget. And the big "secret" is time and experience coupled with proper equipment choices. The indie filmmaker may have the same gear, but do they have the experience to use it to maximum affect, and, even if they have the experience, do they, on their small budgets, have the time to use that equipment to its maximum potential? Have you ever watched a great DP and his/her team light a shot? The budget allows them the time to use their experience to be subtle. When it comes to audio post it's amazing how many tracks there are in a "simple" scene of two characters sitting on opposite sides of a table having a conversation. I can do very nice Foley, but watching and listening to experienced professional Foley artists and mixers is an amazing experience. And this approach applies to every aspect of the filmmaking process, from H/MU to set design to set dressing and all of the other crafts.

 

[CraigL]

One thing no one has touched on, is that those shorts very definitely "shorts". I think you're expecting too much from them. They were, by and large, very well put together shorts. Sometimes, the ages of the talent was off (many were so young, it's very hard to buy their "love angst") and in the last one's case, it was put together quickly for a timed short film festival.

Everything about them was organized for a short, the first seems like they're trying to expand it to a feature, but it didn't seem to translate that well into one to me.

As people have pointed out, it's multifaceted. Audio is a huge component of it; none of them had much other than the "on the nose" audio to them. And definitely, the story/shots were focused on a short, quick story.

Unfortunately, there is no "enlightening" per se, we all interpret films differently. There are a few well respected directors that I haven't been able to make through one of their movies without falling asleep. That doesn't mean they're bad, just I really don't care for their method of storytelling.

The experience you have at the end of something is very dependent on what you went into it with. These were mostly good shorts, but we view them as such. There were shots in all of them that were feature quality, but they lacked the intro/framing/lighting/sound that we've come to expect from features.

This aspect, isn't something any book or course can teach you, you just need to try it out. Try everything out. We learn more from our failures than from our successes. Style, is a very personal thing. And some will like it, others will not.

CraigL

 

[baoliun]

The film has to be well made and coincide with your views, beliefs. Cause any judgement of good is extremely subjective.

Film must be good in all aspects and work as a whole. Take one piece out and the structure collapses. Yes,there are exceptions of indie films which are so good overall, that you can close eyes on some technical drawbacks,but much more often than not it will make you cringe or even turn off the film/leave cinema.

 

[jax_rox]

These are some really amazing answers guys; although all of you make it seem mind numbingly difficult! (and probably rightly so )

On a completely 'unrelated' topic, how much cinematography does a director need to know anyways? I understand that a director should know the basics of every crew members job, from sound mixers to set designers. But I'm curious as to how far a directors knowledge of cinematography should go. Though more is merrier in this case, what would you say is the average amount of cinematographic knowledge a director can possess and still be competent at his/her job?

Thanks again everyone!!

Making a film is not inherently difficult, certainly not mind-numbingly so!

Directors need to have a vision more than anything, and on-set they need to be able to work with everybody (in particular the actors) to get what they want.

The reason the Director surrounds him or herself with the experts that he or she does is because they are experts and the Director is not, and can never be an expert in everything and should not be expected to.
I've worked with Directors who have a large amount of Cinematographic knowledge, and Directors with little to none. Neither has had a great effect on the end result - that is, the only real difference between working with them was those with more experience and more knowledge about cinematography found it easier to visualise what I was talking about. I don't believe it affected the end result of the image too much.

A Director I'm currently working with says she found the book 'Cinematography for Directors' a good read.

Realistically you just need to be able to communicate your ideas and vision. Generally, the DP should be able to break down more complex ideas to give you a sense of what they're talking about.

You might not know specifically about the different diffusion filters, but a DP will (should) be able to tell you why he wants to use x filter over y filter, or at all.

 

[Sweetie]

all of you make it seem mind numbingly difficult! (and probably rightly so )

Jax somewhat beat me to it. It's not that difficult. Surround yourself with people who know what to do. It's really that simple. If you're trying to do it all yourself, then it becomes very tough.

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

a director absolutely must understand editing, or you will produce footage that cannot be edited together properly.

Oh great, you posted our secret on the internet.

 

[sfoster]

Oh great, you posted our secret on the internet.

I have more where that came from...

Unfortunately my name and location are both given away, so my secret identity is compromised as i reveal this long protected trick

 

[A.D.]

And I thought that all you had to do was present the footage in a wide-as-fook aspect ratio.

Pfft. What do you lot know anyway...

I'm off to make some 4:1 crop overlays for my Magic Lantern install.

 

[fleshoff]

I think your talking more about post. I thought the videos you linked to did a pretty good job beside a few color grading choices. I'm chasing that film look myself in my feature but thankfully I'm handing it off to a house for the final grade. I think the grading is vitally important along with the audio. In my own experience I'm able to grade decently for the monitor I'm looking at, but somehow good professional graders can get a good look despite what monitor it's on, it's really an art and far more difficult than I initially thought... I have far more respect for graders than I had going into my project.

 

[noamkroll]

I'm sorry this is such a broad question. By "film look", I don't necessarily mean something that looks as if it was shot on film, but rather something that looks like it could play in theaters (whether it be digital or traditional)

I was watching a few short films on YouTube the other day, and I noticed that none of them really had that "film look". I couldn't quite put my finger on what it was about them; they were all sharp, high definition, had obvious color correction (maybe a bit too much) and sounded fine. Nonetheless though, I couldn't picture any of them playing in a movie theater. Something was simply "off". Below are some random short films I picked to illustrate my point (note: I am NOT saying these films are bad; I actually enjoyed watching them)

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sdbaD8OOxfA
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JFDAvcwDPTA
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=17IyGPJuH0g

Could someone enlighten me on this? Why is it that even when a lot of the same tools are used, you can tell almost immediately whether a film is movie-theater quality (even small art-house quality) or something only suitable for YouTube (an amateur film)? What is it about that sense you get within seconds of watching a film that tells you "I should check my local theaters to see if this movie's playing" or "this couldn't play in a movie theater." Is this a problem with the actual footage? Or is it something about post production

Thanks!!

Hi There!

I actually just posted an article today on how to make video look like film - http://noamkroll.com/how-to-make-video-footage-look-like-film/

 

[FantasyFilmProductions]

I agree with basically everything said here so far...one thing I would add though is camera angles.

A lot of youtube clips fall over because the camera angles used are stale. Its not that the camera angle is bad, its that there would be better ways to film the shot in question which would give it more drama, excitement, sadness or whatever they are trying to portray.

At the same time, you don't want to try to get too clever either. If you use a hundred and one bizarre camera angles to try and dazzle the audience, you will be using 98 camera angles that are pointless and annoy the audience.

Also ( and its already been said above ) You need to be aware of what shots you need to take on film, and at the same time be hugely aware of what parts of those shots you are going to cut off in editing. A great piece of footage is useless if the editor cannot piece it in and for him to have that piece the camera man must understand what the editor needs. The two have a symbiotic relationship relying equally upon each other to capture the correct shot.

 

[harmonica44]

Sets and wardrobes are a big part of it too. Movies in theaters have what I call the 'film look sets and wardrobes'. A lot of shorts on youtube, have the home video looking sets and wardrobes. This is hard to get by since the only sets a lot of us can shoot on are real locations we have access to, and even if we could build sets, where would we put them?

Plus it saves money to have the actors wear their own clothes. This is a huge part of what takes away the 'film look', or 'cinematic look'. We are accustom to movie sets and wardrobes looking certain ways, compared to real life, even if the movie looks like it is in the real world.

 

[Sage Pictures]

Hi There!

I actually just posted an article today on how to make video look like film - http://noamkroll.com/how-to-make-video-footage-look-like-film/

Good points Noam.

I'll throw in:
- at least 1k of detail (and, imo, no more than 2k)
- diffusion through the layers for film crystal/vertical gate softening which leads to a resolved, yet soft/smooth texture
- highlight/shadow s-log roll off in the camera's DR, which results in an orange 'halo' around very strong highlights
- saturation roll off
- predominance of magenta*

Do you remember this: