cinematography 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!!

 

[moonshieldmedia]

I think a lot of people touched on some important aspects of good filmmaking in general, but I don't think they answered your question.

You don't even need to watch the short films you posted for longer than 2 or 3 seconds to know they are not cinematic enough for professional cinema. And that is because of the image quality. DSLR cameras are simply not good enough. You need to be using a camera with extremely high dynamic range and very low or no compression. You need a camera that handles light in a more beautiful way.

I have a blackmagic cinema camera and I can walk outside my house right now and point it at literally anything for 5 seconds and it will already be closer to the "film look" you're referring to than those shorts you posted. No film experience, lighting techniques, editing, or advanced camera angles needed. Probably would need a slight color correction, though

AND I could still argue that my camera is not good enough, it's just close enough for the price point. There is a reason why every single movie nominated for best picture this year was shot with and Alexa.

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

Having motivation behind your choice of shots, lighting, grading, and overall look is really what is going to give you the 'film look'. If you study up on why camera/lighting/grading techniques are used, and how to apply them to your work, you're going to be getting closer to the 'film look' that you desire.

Also, moonshield, I'm going to argue that the 'cinematic look' can be achieved with lower priced DSLRs and similar cameras. Shane Carruth's Upstream Color was a critically acclaimed film that critics hailed as experimental American cinema at it's finest. The images that came out of the GH2 were beautiful, and in my opinion rival some of the best picture nominees this year in terms of cinematography. End of Watch was a great short film that was both critically acclaimed and had a wide release. Many DSLRs and other similar cameras were used. Burton's Frankenweenie was shot on a 5D completely. Various films such as The Dictator, Act of Valor, Black Swan, and 127 Hours used DSLRs such as the 5D Mark lll for action sequences, as backup cameras, and/or as cameras to fit into tight spaces where cinema cameras could not.

 

[Sage Pictures]

Really - since we are using the particular phrase 'good enough' - dslrs and quite a few cameras can be good enough. Say we were to use 'match for' - then it could be said the Alexa does not qualify (as a match for film). Say the phrase is 'very close to' - then the list of dslrs and cameras narrow, and the Alexa is at home.

But to be sure - Francis Ford Coppola, an old film guy through & through, picked a lowly dslr as having a distinctly more 'filmlike' image than the Alexa (and all the other similar cameras) in a notable blind test. This was because of how the DPs using said dslr played the lighting and color to its strength, despite the same exact content and framing (it may have also been helped by the grain-like texture of said dslr, and softer texture) -

*12 Years a Slave and American Hustle were all film (Arricam LT/ST).

The Alexa/Amira and Black Magic cams are pretty amazing.
Vs:

 

[Sage Pictures]

Having motivation behind your choice of shots, lighting, grading, and overall look is really what is going to give you the 'film look'. If you study up on why camera/lighting/grading techniques are used, and how to apply them to your work, you're going to be getting closer to the 'film look' that you desire.

++ Indeed

On the matter of UC, I spoke to Shane, and tried to figure out why he did the grade the way he did, in advance of release. Wanted him to consider going less green, the camera's inherent fault

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

Very neat Alex

Just out of curiosity, how did you happen to meet Shane?

 

[Sage Pictures]

It was through Facebook;
Originally wanted to know how things were going with the editing this time, because he said that the editing of Primer nearly did him in. Said he went with FCP6, much to my surprise (!)

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

Oh. Well, cool

Makes me happy that I'm not the only FCP member still out there!

 

[Sage Pictures]

You can give Premiere CC a shot for free - and when it comes time to edit, you can have it for a month to edit your film at a cost of $20. It really is a revelation on most hardware

 

[jax_rox]

I think a lot of people touched on some important aspects of good filmmaking in general, but I don't think they answered your question.

You don't even need to watch the short films you posted for longer than 2 or 3 seconds to know they are not cinematic enough for professional cinema. And that is because of the image quality. DSLR cameras are simply not good enough. You need to be using a camera with extremely high dynamic range and very low or no compression. You need a camera that handles light in a more beautiful way.

I have a blackmagic cinema camera and I can walk outside my house right now and point it at literally anything for 5 seconds and it will already be closer to the "film look" you're referring to than those shorts you posted. No film experience, lighting techniques, editing, or advanced camera angles needed. Probably would need a slight color correction, though

AND I could still argue that my camera is not good enough, it's just close enough for the price point. There is a reason why every single movie nominated for best picture this year was shot with and Alexa.

It's already been touched on here, but you can certainly make a 'lowly' DSLR look just as cinematic as anything else. The difference is most people using DSLRs for low budget films do not have the knowledge, experience or budget to be able to do so.
I saw 5DmkII footage intercut with Alexa footage in Captain America. I noticed it immediately, but the 8 other people I was with had absolutely no idea what I was talking about.

I've also seen terrible pictures out of Blackmagic cameras, as well as horrendous images out of REDs and Alexas. It's really all about the person behind the camera.
Now, it certainly says something when all of the Best Picture and Best Cinematography nominees are shot on a combination of Alexa and/or film. Indeed, IMO these are the two best looking formats available.

But I've shot on DSLR, I've shot on RED, Alexa, film.

You can make a DSLR look cinematic and you can make a RED camera look cinematic. I probably wouldn't reach for a RED camera most of the time, but sometimes I think the look of it fits the story I'm trying to tell. And when I shoot with it, it simply has a different look to that of Alexa, film, or any other camera or format. It can still be just as cinematic as anything else.

I'd argue that Upstream Color was more cinematic looking than many low budget films I worked on that shot on RED when I was starting out as an AC.

Having a larger dynamic range, having better colour rendition, and having more resolution helps, but it's no replacement for an experienced Cinematographer.

You can give Premiere CC a shot for free - and when it comes time to edit, you can have it for a month to edit your film at a cost of $20. It really is a revelation on most hardware

I mean, if you like Adobe. Personally, I hate it - I'd rather pay for Avid (which I did) or have stuck with FCP7 than go with Adobe, no matter how much it costs.
That's not to say it's not useful for many people. But you need to use what you like and know.

 

[Sage Pictures]

I'd argue that Upstream Color was more cinematic looking than many low budget films I worked on that shot on RED when I was starting out as an AC.

I mean, if you like Adobe. Personally, I hate it - I'd rather pay for Avid (which I did) or have stuck with FCP7 than go with Adobe, no matter how much it costs.
That's not to say it's not useful for many people. But you need to use what you like and know.

Time for irony - I hate adobe too! For the aforementioned pricing model that makes it so appealing for those without budget. Until they address this, one cannot condone their product. Technically? Yes, it is a tour de force & I've used them all (no doubt thats what they are counting on)

Random note - never liked the look of Upstream Color. Your point still stands though.

 

[moonshieldmedia]

I'd argue that Upstream Color was more cinematic looking than many low budget films I worked on that shot on RED when I was starting out as an AC.

Also, moonshield, I'm going to argue that the 'cinematic look' can be achieved with lower priced DSLRs and similar cameras. Shane Carruth's Upstream Color was a critically acclaimed film that critics hailed as experimental American cinema at it's finest...

I do agree with both of you that Upstream Color was a beautiful and cinematic film, but Shane used a hacked GH2 to get the maximum dynamic range out of the camera, which was my point. DSLRs as they are do not have enough range, he found a loop hole. My argument that the limitations of the camera is what is holding the "film look" back still holds true in this instance, because the shorts that the OP listed were shot with limited cameras.

End of Watch was a great short film that was both critically acclaimed and had a wide release.

Just watched the trailer and it looks like a very expensive youtube video. Not cinematic at all.

Burton's Frankenweenie was shot on a 5D completely.

Didn't see this one... isn't it animated?

The Dictator

Alexa

Act of Valor

Expensive uncinematic youtube video

Black Swan and 127 Hours used DSLRs

Those few shots where they were used might hold up in the overall film and go unnoticed to most audiences, but in a side by side comparison they fail. The OP wants to make an entire short film.

Having a larger dynamic range, having better colour rendition, and having more resolution helps, but it's no replacement for an experienced Cinematographer.

I don't know how to argue this to back up my point, other than to say that all the footage I shoot day after day with only natural and available light looks amazing on my camera, and I have no experience. That's why I believe the camera is responsible.

 

[Sage Pictures]

Thing is - Shane & team didn't hack it
& they really should've

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

I do agree with both of you that Upstream Color was a beautiful and cinematic film, but Shane used a hacked GH2 to get the maximum dynamic range out of the camera, which was my point. DSLRs as they are do not have enough range, he found a loop hole. My argument that the limitations of the camera is what is holding the "film look" back still holds true in this instance, because the shorts that the OP listed were shot with limited cameras.

Well, no, he didn't. But why would that matter? Anyone can hack their GH2.

Just watched the trailer and it looks like a very expensive youtube video. Not cinematic at all.

The film had a WIDE CINEMA RELEASE, and there were no complaints about the video resolution or un-cinematic image. It was critically acclaimed and loved by many.

Didn't see this one... isn't it animated?

Claymation.

Alexa

Did you not read what I wrote? I added at the end that DSLRs were used as BACKUP CAMERAS, ACTION SEQUENCE CAMERAS, and for TIGHT SPACES.

Expensive uncinematic youtube video

Really? The film had a WIDE CINEMA RELEASE.

Those few shots where they were used might hold up in the overall film and go unnoticed to most audiences, but in a side by side comparison they fail. The OP wants to make an entire short film.

Audiences don't care anything for side by side comparisons. The OP can make an entire short film with a GH2 if she uses it skillfully. If you use a camera skillfully, people don't care. People hail 28 Days Later as one of the greatest horror/zombie movies of all time. How many people complained about the video resolution? How about Upstream Color, which used a GH2? People loved the beautiful imagery from what I remember.

I don't know how to argue this to back up my point, other than to say that all the footage I shoot day after day with only natural and available light looks amazing on my camera, and I have no experience. That's why I believe the camera is responsible.

I believe that it's the man behind the camera, not the camera itself.

 

[jax_rox]

I do agree with both of you that Upstream Color was a beautiful and cinematic film, but Shane used a hacked GH2 to get the maximum dynamic range out of the camera, which was my point. DSLRs as they are do not have enough range, he found a loop hole. My argument that the limitations of the camera is what is holding the "film look" back still holds true in this instance, because the shorts that the OP listed were shot with limited cameras.

Firstly, the GH2 used was apprently non-hacked. Secondly, as long as you are aware of the camera's dynamic range, and light within that, then it really doesn't matter what that dynamic range is.

For literal years DPs have been running tests on formats and film stocks to find out where their 'breaking points' are and to inform their lighting and exposure choices.

If a DSLR only has four usable stops of DR, then you light within that. Old film reversal had ~6 stops of DR. Also, this 'loophole' thing is not new either. In the days of film (and even still today), Cinematographers would push or pull process, or bleach bypass. Janusz Kaminski used a slower stock on Saving Private Ryan, but pushed it to give him greater exposure, rather than use a faster stock because he liked the look of it better.

By your reasoning, that's barely a legitimate use of the format, and one should not look at the cinematic viability of that format (in this case stock) based on the 'loophole'

Certainly, DSLRs have limited dynamic range and that does not help at all. But that does not mean you cannot get a cinematic image out of it, especially with an experience Cinematographer at the helm.

As I said in my previous post, I bet in the major films where top Cinematographers use DSLRs for certain shots, you would in most cases struggle to pick what is and isn't DSLR.

Take a film like Rush - Mostly Arri Alexa with a bunch of other digital formats, including DSLR. I thought most of the film was shot on S16 with Classic Soft filters (the CS filters were, in fact, used) and some funky processing.

Those few shots where they were used might hold up in the overall film and go unnoticed to most audiences, but in a side by side comparison they fail. The OP wants to make an entire short film.

I don't know how to argue this to back up my point, other than to say that all the footage I shoot day after day with only natural and available light looks amazing on my camera, and I have no experience. That's why I believe the camera is responsible.

The reality is, it's in a film where the main format is not a limited, compressed, small dynamic range camera where the cut between A cam and DSLR cam should be most noticeable!

The argument here is not that other cameras are not better. Indeed, most cameras (which cost more - apart from the BMPCC) create better pictures - that have better dynamic range, that have less compression, less noise. Better colour rendition. But, they're also a lot more expensive.

The argument is that you can still make something look cinematic using a DSLR. And the simple fact is yes, you can, especially if you have a team of professionals working for you.

To be completely honest, I haven't seen a single frame of footage from a Blackmagic camera that looks 'cinematic' if you take cinematic to mean 'looking like a film stock'. Everything that comes out of the Blackmagic looks very digital. It does have better dynamic range, sure, but it's still digital-looking as ever. To me, it looks like some amalgamation of the pictures of a RED Scarlet, a Sony F5 and a DSLR. Certainly, I don't think the images out of the Pocket cam look all that much better than a hacked GH2, though they do have increased dynamic range.

At the end of the day, if you gave me a hammer and asked me to build a house, I could attempt to do so, but it would probably not go very well and I doubt it would be up to code.

If you then paid a bunch of extra money for me to be able to paint the house in gold, it might look a tad nicer, sure.

But imagine if you instead employed a professional hosue builder - the house would look awesome, it would work perfectly, and adhere to the regulations and building code.
And if you still wanted to paint it gold, it would look even better!

 

[moonshieldmedia]

Thing is - Shane & team didn't hack it
& they really should've

I've read from at least 2 or 3 sources it was hacked. Maybe that's a common misconception?

The film had a WIDE CINEMA RELEASE, and there were no complaints about the video resolution or un-cinematic image. It was critically acclaimed and loved by many.

People hail 28 Days Later as one of the greatest horror/zombie movies of all time. How many people complained about the video resolution?

What does having a "wide cinema release" have anything to do with how cinematic the picture looks?

You keep arguing for a totally different point here. You keep giving me examples of films that were popular and successful despite the fact that they didn't look great. While you're at it why do you add The Blair Witch Project to the list and try to tell me it looks cinematic?

I believe that it's the man behind the camera, not the camera itself.

I can respect your opinion, and I know a lot of other users on this board will agree with you, but I don't think it's black and white either way. Sure, a skilled DP can make a DSLR look "more cinematic" but I don't think it's good enough. And if the OP wants advice for making his/her film look more like professional films, the best advice for quickest results is to ditch the DSLRs.

 

[moonshieldmedia]

Firstly, the GH2 used was apprently non-hacked. Secondly, as long as you are aware of the camera's dynamic range, and light within that, then it really doesn't matter what that dynamic range is.

For literal years DPs have been running tests on formats and film stocks to find out where their 'breaking points' are and to inform their lighting and exposure choices.

If a DSLR only has four usable stops of DR, then you light within that. Old film reversal had ~6 stops of DR. Also, this 'loophole' thing is not new either. In the days of film (and even still today), Cinematographers would push or pull process, or bleach bypass. Janusz Kaminski used a slower stock on Saving Private Ryan, but pushed it to give him greater exposure, rather than use a faster stock because he liked the look of it better.

By your reasoning, that's barely a legitimate use of the format, and one should not look at the cinematic viability of that format (in this case stock) based on the 'loophole'

Certainly, DSLRs have limited dynamic range and that does not help at all. But that does not mean you cannot get a cinematic image out of it, especially with an experience Cinematographer at the helm.

As I said in my previous post, I bet in the major films where top Cinematographers use DSLRs for certain shots, you would in most cases struggle to pick what is and isn't DSLR.

Take a film like Rush - Mostly Arri Alexa with a bunch of other digital formats, including DSLR. I thought most of the film was shot on S16 with Classic Soft filters (the CS filters were, in fact, used) and some funky processing.


The reality is, it's in a film where the main format is not a limited, compressed, small dynamic range camera where the cut between A cam and DSLR cam should be most noticeable!

The argument here is not that other cameras are not better. Indeed, most cameras (which cost more - apart from the BMPCC) create better pictures - that have better dynamic range, that have less compression, less noise. Better colour rendition. But, they're also a lot more expensive.

The argument is that you can still make something look cinematic using a DSLR. And the simple fact is yes, you can, especially if you have a team of professionals working for you.

To be completely honest, I haven't seen a single frame of footage from a Blackmagic camera that looks 'cinematic' if you take cinematic to mean 'looking like a film stock'. Everything that comes out of the Blackmagic looks very digital. It does have better dynamic range, sure, but it's still digital-looking as ever. To me, it looks like some amalgamation of the pictures of a RED Scarlet, a Sony F5 and a DSLR. Certainly, I don't think the images out of the Pocket cam look all that much better than a hacked GH2, though they do have increased dynamic range.

At the end of the day, if you gave me a hammer and asked me to build a house, I could attempt to do so, but it would probably not go very well and I doubt it would be up to code.

If you then paid a bunch of extra money for me to be able to paint the house in gold, it might look a tad nicer, sure.

But imagine if you instead employed a professional hosue builder - the house would look awesome, it would work perfectly, and adhere to the regulations and building code.
And if you still wanted to paint it gold, it would look even better!

You made a lot of good points here about cinematographers knowing the limit of the camera, and I may have stuck my foot in my mouth arguing against Upstream Color, but here is where I think you're analogies break down...

If I go outside tomorrow morning with my Blackmagic or a RED or Alexa and point it at a dead bird by a tree stump for 3 seconds on a locked tripod, then I do the exact same thing with my Canon 7D, guess which one is going to look like a clip from a Lars Von Trier film and which one is going to look like a high school film student's thesis short?

The DSLR shot will be compressed, over-saturated, and contrasty, while the other shot is basically ready for the big screen. No lighting setups or experience needed.

Skill and talent is the only way to make a good film, but it is not the only way to make a nice looking film.

 

[Sage Pictures]

Its quite the surprise. It always is that the personalities which go on to do substantial things with the camera eschew hacking and are irreverent towards the tech. & the obsessives hit every nail but shoot little. Perhaps if the two could meet somewhere in the middle.

 

[Sage Pictures]

look like a clip from a Lars Von Trier film

Which one?

 

[moonshieldmedia]

Which one?

haha touché

I think Melancholia supports my point the best so I'll go with that.

 

[Sage Pictures]

haha touché

I think Melancholia supports my point the best so I'll go with that.

++ Alexa & Phantom; that one has his very best