cinematography What gives a film that "film look"?

L

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!!
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
moonshieldmedia said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, if you went out tomorrow and did that test, the RED or Alexa would probably look miles better than a 7D. But, assuming you've never used a RED or Alexa, it's entirely possible the images you got out of them could be just as bad. You might accidentally put the Alexa into REC709 mode recording into ProRes Proxy. You might mis-read the RED and expose incorrectly, you might not understand the menus and end up shooting 1k at 30:1 compression, without having done a black balance.

But I'd argue that a professional Cinematographer (especially one used to making DSLRs look good), coupled with a colourist, could make the 7D look almost as good. Indeed, they did similar things with Zacuto's shootout. Certainly there were differences in each camera, and it's relatively easy to pick the formats if you've worked with them enough.

But if you placed an average audience member in front of the screen and showed them the Zacuto shootout, I bet the only one they'd pick as any different is the iPhone.

I don't shoot on DSLRs, and I personally hate them. I don't think they're very good cameras at all, and you're right - the image is compressed, has a limited dynamic range etc.

But that doesn't mean you can't get a cinematic image out of them.

It's weird - you're arguing the same point as me. I'm saying yes, REDs, Alexas, etc. are better cameras and produce nicer images.

But that doesn't mean that you can only ever make something that look like it was shot by a high school kid if you use a 7D or a GH2 or whatever.

A high school kid using an Alexa will still look like a high school kid shot it. I saw a short shot by an acquaintance of mine who's never shot anything in their life. They used an Epic and shot at 5k. When projected, it looked as if they'd used a Hi-8 handycam to shoot it on - and honestly, they could've shot it on that and it would've looked identical, and they wouldn't have had to pay for the rental of the RED.

Similarly, I've seen DSLR footage cut almost indistinguishably with Alexas and REDs. Was it hacked? Maybe. Who cares? It's still a DSLR.

Better cameras are certainly capable of making much better images, but at the end of the day, it's the person behind the camera who's going to make it look the way it does.

And simply using a DSLR does not mean that your film or image cannot look 'un-cinematic'. It has the potential to look very cinematic (see Upstream Color and others).

Especially when we're talking about a general audience, and not those of us who are used to seeing the difference between cameras.

I personally thought 28 Days Later looked kinda sh**ty, but it still did well.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think by the time people are able to either get a great crew or learn how to make a high quality product out of a dslr they have already progressed to better cameras. However good film doesn't require great cameras or even great cinematic techniques. One has to train and upgrade his brain lol. Take a look at Chaplin's films, as Kubrick once said he couldn't have filmed them in a more "pedestrian" way,yet he is a genius. Take a look at Woody Allen early films and even some later ones. Giotto was sketching on a ground with a stick and he already was a genius. Obv he would never use "ground" instead of canvas once he got famous,but nevertheless he was able to be great anywhere anyhow.

Give Roger Deakins an iPhone and I bet you he will get an Oscar nomination. Train your brain first and invest money in your brain and not cameras,lenses etc.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top