Why exactly does this look amateur???

[eivashchenko]

I'm trying to learn what doesn't work for filmmaking, as well as what does work, and this video seemed a good example of not working.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSh2aK8LC9E&feature=related

I watched pretty much the first ten minutes of this video, and gave up. I simply couldn't suspend my disbelief and get into the movie. I think it's from the amateur look, but I'm not entirely sure why it is amateur. I'd have to give it to the infinity depth of field, the insane amount of blue in it, and something about the camcorder-esque smoothness of it.

But I've seen scenes with a huge DOF and still look professional and cinematic. As well, I've seen very blue-tinted videos and they weren't jarring either.

Any professional opinions on why this isn't quite working?

Also, I don't mean to be a critic; I am honestly trying to learn.

 

[knightly]

Oh, and all of this was done with a single 3-way color corrector and an oval shape overlay in final cut with nothing special for software - no magic bullet here.

 

[knightly]

Here, the sky in the background is too bright for the darkened foreground... over lighting the foregrounds and lighting the trees differently would have helped... shooting at night would have helped... not showing the sky would have helped...

using a luma mask would have brought the background down to fit in the limited video exposure range:

As I think more on this one, I could also have used the same luma mask inverted to bring up the mids to match the background highlights a little better to get the exposure a bit more under control.

 

[Theodebernacius]

alot of the methods that seek the "film look" (I 8-years of hate this term and it's holy grail - like appeal to videographers) do so by crappifying the image to get it blurry.

That's what I've been thinking for some time. I'm glad you brought that up.

I strongly suspect that it's what happened to the image of 'The Social Network". It's probably the blurriest movie I've ever seen. I was so perplexed by that I re-watched "Se7en" just to check if blurriness was a trademark of Fincher. It is not.

TNS was shot on a RED. To me the image you can get from the RED is half-way between film and DSRL. With minimal post-processing it's definitely closer to DSLR (at least on my computer screen). Now that DSLRs are getting this technicolor thingy with logarithmic recording (http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=30769) I bet RED are DSRL will be virtually indistinguishable on a small screen.

TNS does not look like DSLR. But I think it's because they intentionally blurred it in post-processing (they might call that defocusing). They deny it. Cioni who was responsible for the DI (that's how they call the image post-processing, I don't know why) claims there was no blurring whatsoever. They say the blurry look was all due to the large aperture (T1.3).

I'm not sure I believe that. But then I'm a newbie. So, I'm asking you. Do you think the blurry look of TNS was exclusively obtained with the aperture?

 

[knightly]

Haven't seen TSN, so I really can't comment, but yes, larger iris will allow the non-focal point portions of the frame to be blurrier... and allow for narrower DoF.

Here's the forest frame with the background pulled down slightly, the foreground pushed up to match, color brought back a bit and each of the faces visible brightened slightly. Total, 2 3wCC's and 4 Ovals.

 

[sonnyboo]

TNS was shot on a RED. To me the image you can get from the RED is half-way between film and DSRL. With minimal post-processing it's definitely closer to DSLR (at least on my computer screen). Now that DSLRs are getting this technicolor thingy with logarithmic recording (http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=30769) I bet RED are DSRL will be virtually indistinguishable on a small screen.

TNS does not look like DSLR. But I think it's because they intentionally blurred it in post-processing (they might call that defocusing). They deny it. Cioni who was responsible for the DI (that's how they call the image post-processing, I don't know why) claims there was no blurring whatsoever. They say the blurry look was all due to the large aperture (T1.3).

I'm not sure I believe that. But then I'm a newbie. So, I'm asking you. Do you think the blurry look of TNS was exclusively obtained with the aperture?

I recently saw this for the first time on Blu Ray.... not exactly blurry to me on a 50" plasma. It looked just as film-like as anything else I've seen lately. I find it incredinly unlikely that the colorist would lie about not making digital blurring. What would be the motive?

DI stands for "Digital Intermediate" and that part of post production is solely for the digital color correction phase. They call it DI because even most films shot on film are digitally scanned at 2k or 4k, then run through this process for color correction, then output again to film. They used to do color timing with the amount of time the film was processing in chemicals, now they use the computer at high resolution.

 

[Kholi]

Would you agree that the stills are taken out of context of the actual moving image and still may not have that much of an impact when they're all thrown back into an interlaced timeline and replayed?

You could probably download the video, color it as you see fit, then see what everyone thinks when the footage is still at the same frame rate.

 

[knightly]

I've done these same types of corrections on my last couple of shorts with really good results. Learning grading changed the way I shoot. The vignettes end up being a bit less strong so they don't stand out as much when you keyframe them to match the movement in the frame, but careful placement of the edges, heavy feathering and a really delicate touch with them looks really good.

For reference of how to do this with moving objects in frame, see the Kong is King BTS stuff, they popped the lead actresses eyes blue in her closeups frame by frame in much the same way I lightened the faces in the last picture (I'd use Shake or Color for that kind of work for more control).

Also see the BTS on the Panic Room 3 disc set, the se7en BTS on color grading and the other one I'm thinking of but can't remember right now.

 

[Kholi]

I've done these same types of corrections on my last couple of shorts with really good results. Learning grading changed the way I shoot. The vignettes end up being a bit less strong so they don't stand out as much when you keyframe them to match the movement in the frame, but careful placement of the edges, heavy feathering and a really delicate touch with them looks really good.

For reference of how to do this with moving objects in frame, see the Kong is King BTS stuff, they popped the lead actresses eyes blue in her closeups frame by frame in much the same way I lightened the faces in the last picture (I'd use Shake or Color for that kind of work for more control).

Also see the BTS on the Panic Room 3 disc set, the se7en BTS on color grading and the other one I'm thinking of but can't remember right now.

Haha... Thanks for the tips, sir. I'm usually in a Resolve Color Studio with this type of work, haven't really seen Shake in ages, myself.

I'm saying, what you're demonstrating here is out of context because they're just still images. To actually see your point, we'd need to see moving images.

Indeed, it can be helped by "creative adjustments", despite the fact that it was obviously the filmmakers choice to do these things to the image . But, you can't tell how much it changes the perception of amateur from stills. Motion picture is motion picture.

That's what I'm referring to.

 

[knightly]

I see your point, unfortunately, I can spare the couple of minutes to grade these stills for examples, but my last short I graded was a 7 minute short and I spent up to 12 hours masking and keyframing a single shot to make it work with the motion in the image.

The ND Grad I applied in post to the forest scene would need to stay at the same level even if the camera shakes, and have believable motion blur applied to it to match the camera... the facial relighting would need to be shrunk to fit with in the actor's faces and the feather not extend outside the edges, so any motions would need to be rotoscoped to fit the face and keyframed by hand to stick to them in a very detailed way. I just don't have the time to demonstrate that, but if it counts, you can take my word for it.

Seasoned film actors also move differently for the camera to both avoid strange motion artifacts and to cue the camera operator when to move the camera to follow (and many more takes on a professional set - $$$). The camera operators also move the camera in a much more cinematic way (more slowly) in Hollywood than anywhere else (Classic martial arts films are shot on film and tend to look very "Video" due to these motion cues). The lighting is the BIG key though, the keylights in all of these shots is very reflective and completely overpowers the rest of the lighting. It shows the lighting rather than the lighting showing the scene:

This image shows that keylight "glinging" off the forearm and gun in an un-cinematic way. Whether in motion or not, it cues the viewer to the artifice of the image. Either toning down the key by softening it, bringing up the fill or spraying the gun with some sort of anti-glare spray would serve to quiet this effect.

 

[knightly]

Here's an example of a still from a big movie that has fundamentally the same content, compare the lighting:

 

[Kholi]

I see your point, unfortunately, I can spare the couple of minutes to grade these stills for examples, but my last short I graded was a 7 minute short and I spent up to 12 hours masking and keyframing a single shot to make it work with the motion in the image.

I can understand that, for sure. For those paying attention, it might've been a more "telling" exercise was my point.

The ND Grad I applied in post to the forest scene would need to stay at the same level even if the camera shakes, and have believable motion blur applied to it to match the camera... the facial relighting would need to be shrunk to fit with in the actor's faces and the feather not extend outside the edges, so any motions would need to be rotoscoped to fit the face and keyframed by hand to stick to them in a very detailed way. I just don't have the time to demonstrate that, but if it counts, you can take my word for it.

Having experience in what you're talking about, I definitely understand what you're getting at. Indeed, power-windows etc help tremendously. I'm not discounting the importance of a great post process if the material acquired needs it.

Seasoned film actors also move differently for the camera to both avoid strange motion artifacts and to cue the camera operator when to move the camera to follow (and many more takes on a professional set - $$$). The camera operators also move the camera in a much more cinematic way (more slowly) in Hollywood than anywhere else (Classic martial arts films are shot on film and tend to look very "Video" due to these motion cues). The lighting is the BIG key though, the keylights in all of these shots is very reflective and completely overpowers the rest of the lighting. It shows the lighting rather than the lighting showing the scene:

This image shows that keylight "glinging" off the forearm and gun in an un-cinematic way. Whether in motion or not, it cues the viewer to the artifice of the image.

Well, I've never actually heard of, personally, any actors changing their blocking or any director blocking to avoid strange motion artifacts, but it's a possibility for sure! Anyway, without getting into the differences between domestic cinematography and foreign: this is a clearly stylized feature film. The still you're showing looks exactly as it should.

There's detail in that weapon and and it's rimmed/kicked by a smaller source on the opposite side. The low key lighting looks pretty purposeful to me. Especially considering the separation between subject and background in the still.

And, with the EXPENDABLES still, you can't really compare two movies with two different types of subject matter: they're different products. One's made to appeal to a larger audience and the other's concocted for niche appreciation, people who like cheesey content.

I'm not downplaying the importance of proper lighting, etc. I'm more so interested in seeing how the OP might respond to the video if all things were equal and it was still interlaced/29.97 footage.

 

[Dreadylocks]

This has become a really fascinating thread

Thanks for the info, knightly. And May the 4th be with you!

 

[knightly]

actors changing their blocking or any director blocking to avoid strange motion artifacts, but it's a possibility for sure! Anyway, without getting into the differences between domestic cinematography and foreign: this is a clearly stylized feature film. The still you're showing looks exactly as it should.

Michael Caine's videos on acting touch on movement for the camera... This would be one of those things that falls under the "Let's do another take more slowly...now faster" that happens on set all the time as a director watches the monitor (now - it used to just be from experience in the pre-monitor days) - these takes eventually get discarded if they don't show the right thing in camera motion wise. Bruce Lee had to slow down all his movements as well as his punches and kicks were too fast to be picked up convincingly at 24fps.

There's detail in that weapon and and it's rimmed/kicked by a smaller source on the opposite side. The low key lighting looks pretty purposeful to me. Especially considering the separation between subject and background in the still.

I don't disagree, but I'm specifically responding to the OP's question about what elements in the frame make the video look "amateurish" and the following statements about 24p being the end all be all "film look" - I've seen quite a few videos that look very "Filmic" and quite a few 24p film pieces that look like bad video, which has me convinced that the frame rate is really a small part of the puzzle (it is still something to consider, but I've shot in 24p and really didn't notice any "immediate filmic look" from it... the film look comes from so much that happens outside the camera, that the in camera stuff plays a much smaller role (other than proper exposure, focus, framing and blocking).

And, with the EXPENDABLES still, you can't really compare two movies with two different types of subject matter: they're different products. One's made to appeal to a larger audience and the other's concocted for niche appreciation, people who like cheesey content.

I'd venture a guess that it was purely a budgetary concern... but the content is similar. man, gun, brick wall. In the expendables, the background has much more visual interest - the lighting is much more dynamic. The OP was specifically asking why does it look cheesy/amateurish - and I'm just pointing out the differences in lighting that contribute to the "I'M SHOT ON VIDEO" look... and I like cheesy productions. I see footage like this on SYFY all the time.

I'm not downplaying the importance of proper lighting, etc. I'm more so interested in seeing how the OP might respond to the video if all things were equal and it was still interlaced/29.97 footage.

I would agree, but I would argue that the frame rate plays less of a role than the shutter speed (1/48th vs. 1/60th) I'd love to see a test of 24p and 30p footage both shot at 1/48 to see if I'm right, but my camera can't do it.

A lot of the arguments end up being "all things equal"... but the fact is that not everything is equal in them (I can't watch flash content in 24p or 30p on my laptop (so I'm even basing the video look on more of a 5-10 fps video)... which is my primary machine (it'll edit full rez SD footage just fine, but flash is poorly implemented in quicktime for the mac due to apple/adobe licensing agreement problems historically... fps is just one piece in the puzzle and jsut changing that one element won't explain away the "video" look of this (I've watched movies on TV that are presented in 60i - though shot 24p - for many years and you can certainly tell the difference in the color reproduction/ lattitude between stuff originated on film and video).

This is an awesome discussion!

 

[knightly]

...May the 4th be with you!

and altho with you.

 

[Kholi]

Definitely a great discussion, sir.

Michael Caine's videos on acting touch on movement for the camera... This would be one of those things that falls under the "Let's do another take more slowly...now faster" that happens on set all the time as a director watches the monitor (now - it used to just be from experience in the pre-monitor days) - these takes eventually get discarded if they don't show the right thing in camera motion wise. Bruce Lee had to slow down all his movements as well as his punches and kicks were too fast to be picked up convincingly at 24fps.

I'm not sure what Michael Caine's touching on, would have to listen to what he has to say. However, when a director's at a monitor trimming performance, it's typically for beat and pacing... I've never experienced any director or cinematographer adjusting performance due to motion artifacts.

Action, you shoot at various shutter degrees to accommodate. I'd wager that Bruce Lee's "read" had less to do with the camera not being able to capture his action versus the actual performance aspect of seeing someone getting bare-knuckled in the face. Haha.

I don't disagree, but I'm specifically responding to the OP's question about what elements in the frame make the video look "amateurish" and the following statements about 24p being the end all be all "film look" - I've seen quite a few videos that look very "Filmic" and quite a few 24p film pieces that look like bad video, which has me convinced that the frame rate is really a small part of the puzzle (it is still something to consider, but I've shot in 24p and really didn't notice any "immediate filmic look" from it... the film look comes from so much that happens outside the camera, that the in camera stuff plays a much smaller role (other than proper exposure, focus, framing and blocking).

Absolutely. Outside of the technical aspects of the camera, the "film look" isn't a look at all, but an experience crafted through acting, sound, set design, and most of all content. It's a misunderstanding to think that the film look has only to do with the process of shooting film.

The question would have different answers, at least from me, if it were phrased as: Why doesn't this video look Cinematic at all? Different can of worms, me thinks.

I'd venture a guess that it was purely a budgetary concern... but the content is similar. man, gun, brick wall. In the expendables, the background has much more visual interest - the lighting is much more dynamic. The OP was specifically asking why does it look cheesy/amateurish - and I'm just pointing out the differences in lighting that contribute to the "I'M SHOT ON VIDEO" look... and I like cheesy productions. I see footage like this on SYFY all the time.

They had a fairly decent budget. I read up on Ninjas vs Aliens from the inception. It's purposely done to appeal to a certain crowd that's not limited to only Asian Distribution Territories.

It's actually the very same reason why SyFy movies from Asylum look, sound, and sound the part of "pretty bad". There's a market for it, a huge one.

More than likely you're right, it'd be interesting to see just how much the frame rate changes the reception. I've seen a host of pretty well-done projects on the Canon 5D pre-24P firmware update and regardless of how well it's lit, composed, etc... the frame rate always made it seem too amateur to bare.

It's a stigma from the early days of video, which is pretty hard to break out of.

I would agree, but I would argue that the frame rate plays less of a role than the shutter speed (1/48th vs. 1/60th) I'd love to see a test of 24p and 30p footage both shot at 1/48 to see if I'm right, but my camera can't do it.

If you were to shoot 30P, then your frame rate should be 1/60 for a similar experience to 24P @ 1/48. The motion blur @ 1/48 may render any large action unwatchable.

However, I've also been told that shooting 48FPS @ 1/48 looks so close to 24P, it's almost indistinguishable.

I haven't seen it with my own eyes, I'm curious, though!

A lot of the arguments end up being "all things equal"... but the fact is that not everything is equal in them (I can't watch flash content in 24p or 30p on my laptop (so I'm even basing the video look on more of a 5-10 fps video)... which is my primary machine (it'll edit full rez SD footage just fine, but flash is poorly implemented in quicktime for the mac due to apple/adobe licensing agreement problems historically... fps is just one piece in the puzzle and jsut changing that one element won't explain away the "video" look of this (I've watched movies on TV that are presented in 60i - though shot 24p - for many years and you can certainly tell the difference in the color reproduction/ lattitude between stuff originated on film and video).

Absolutely. I can always tell what's originated on film and video. And, I can tell the difference between different flavors of video. I know some people say they can' tell the difference between RED and DSLR on the internet...

I think it stands out like a sore thumb on any platform.

Good to see well-natured discussion on these boards! New member here, it's cool to see the community's pretty open 'round here.

 

[knightly]

If you were to shoot 30P, then your frame rate should be 1/60 for a similar experience to 24P @ 1/48. The motion blur @ 1/48 may render any large action unwatchable.
However, I've also been told that shooting 48FPS @ 1/48 looks so close to 24P, it's almost indistinguishable.
I haven't seen it with my own eyes, I'm curious, though!

From a physics standpoint, motion blur being captured in a 1/48th of a second timeslice should look the same whether it's presented for 1/24th of a second or 1/30th... the shutter speed is really the capture component, while the fps is the speed reconstruction of the film... so anything 24fps or greater captured at 1/48th should look fundamentally the same... like presenting old 18fps film @ 24fps but stretching it to play in real time. Shutter = input/ fps = Output. An object moving through space for 1/48th sec will look the same in any given frame... again, haven't seen it, just theoretical at this point.

Good to see well-natured discussion on these boards! New member here, it's cool to see the community's pretty open 'round here.

That's why I came here and why I stayed

 

[Kholi]

From a physics standpoint, motion blur being captured in a 1/48th of a second timeslice should look the same whether it's presented for 1/24th of a second or 1/30th... the shutter speed is really the capture component, while the fps is the speed reconstruction of the film... so anything 24fps or greater captured at 1/48th should look fundamentally the same... like presenting old 18fps film @ 24fps but stretching it to play in real time. Shutter = input/ fps = Output. An object moving through space for 1/48th sec will look the same in any given frame... again, haven't seen it, just theoretical at this point.

Well, to simulate the look, you'd need to shoot at 180 degrees. 30FPS @ 1/48 isn't 180 degrees, my math's probably off but I think it's more like 230~240 degrees. That means it's going to be crazy blurry.

However, 24 and 48 are multiples, so if you shot 48 @ 1/48 it's 360 degrees which should mean each progressive frame gets exposed versus every few.

So, they shouldn't look the same.

30FPS @ 1/60 = 180 Degrees, each frame gets exposed.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, as usual. I dropped the tech side of things a little while back in favor of a getting on with the career! haha

 

[knightly]

You are correct in saying that a 180 degree shutter is normal... this puts 24fps @ 1/48 and 30fps @ 1/60 shutter respectively... but I'm looking at it from the life of a photon standpoint. When the shutter is open, photons (think light particles) are registered on either the film or sensor. As long as the shutter is open, the photons can be captured. In the cast of 24fps, it is open for 1/48th of a second. If an object moves half way across the frame in that 1/48th of a second, you see the whole movement of the object in that single frame (time slice). This causes the motion blur. Too much of this and the image breaks apart.

In 30fps, 1/60th of a second is captured, so the object moving half way across the frame in 1/48th, moves a much shorter distance while the shutter is open... therefore, less motion blur. This is the main component of the perception of cadence.... the 1/60th frame looks crisper due to the shorter timeslice captured... this is true within 24p as well... capturing 1/48th and 1/60th at 24p gives a noticeable difference in the motion. I'm positing that keeping the shutter open for 1/48th of a second will look much more similar to 24p@1/48th even when captured and showed at 30fps.

 

[knightly]

Does anyone have a camera who can test this... both 1/48th and 1/60th at both 24p and 30p... with motion in the frame, either an object moving through the frame or a pan?

 

[sonnyboo]

Does anyone have a camera who can test this... both 1/48th and 1/60th at both 24p and 30p... with motion in the frame, either an object moving through the frame or a pan?

This video should help clear up a lot of the shutter speed versus frame rate discussion.


http://www.vimeo.com/19603537

Killer examples.