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.

 

[Kholi]

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't almost all television shows and music videos shot at 30FPS? I don't hear anyone claiming that "Lost" looks "amatuerish".

Actually, I have no idea what frame rate "Lost" was shot at, but I'm quite confident that there are a ton of television productions that look terrific, that are shot at 30FPS.

It's the cinematography, camerawork, acting, choreography, VFX, editing, everything BUT frame rate.

Most television shows are delivered @ 29.97, because that's broadcast standard. Images are typically acquired at 23.98 for modern television shows, delivered within 29.97 3:2 Pulldowns, which gives the image a "different" cadence that most people can't really differentiate. Even a lot of reality is now shot with a film-like framerate (24P, 23.98/23.976) because of the more "expensive" aesthetic it brings.

I don't believe the consensus is that 29.97 is bad, but only a creative choice. If it fits the subject matter (Soap Operas are a really good example of why you'd use a higher frame rate) calls for it, then so be it.

I'd be willing to bet that if anyone post converted this to 23.98 (which takes more than just changing the frame rate) with the right pulldown etc, it would change a lot of minds.

These types of pictures are shot like this for international distribution, which allows for a multitude of delivery formats, some of which will definitely be 23.98.

Netflix, if I remember properly, requires 23.98 versions as well. I could be wrong, but that's what I remember.

 

[Rob B]

yup, I like the trailer, but it feels like a Power Rangers episode, which I attribute to the frame rate like others.

Exactly what I thought.

I love this thread.. as I don't know, but I have suspicions.
I've seen some cheesy Kung Fu that I have loved.. but this would not be it.. eventhough the action seems to be on par with some that I have liked.

Off my head.. I'd say 24p would have helped a lot, but also it looks like it's shot faster than 1/50. It also looks unintentionally hand held?

A lot of it, seems like it could be better with some mood lighting too.. That alien is not particularly great, but if it was in shadows, it could be much better for sure.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Most television shows are delivered @ 29.97, because that's broadcast standard. Images are typically acquired at 23.98 for modern television shows, delivered within 29.97 3:2 Pulldowns, which gives the image a "different" cadence that most people can't really differentiate.

Well, I was being sincere when I said, "correct me if I'm wrong". Won't be the last time I'm corrected; thanks for the info.

 

[Kholi]

Well, I was being sincere when I said, "correct me if I'm wrong". Won't be the last time I'm corrected; thanks for the info.

We're all here to learn and share ideas, thoughts! That's what makes a community thrive, sir.

=]

 

[Kholi]

Exactly what I thought.

I love this thread.. as I don't know, but I have suspicions.
I've seen some cheesy Kung Fu that I have loved.. but this would not be it.. eventhough the action seems to be on par with some that I have liked.

Off my head.. I'd say 24p would have helped a lot, but also it looks like it's shot faster than 1/50. It also looks unintentionally hand held?

A lot of it, seems like it could be better with some mood lighting too.. That alien is not particularly great, but if it was in shadows, it could be much better for sure.

Sorry, I'm going to segue briefly.

The deal with shows like Power Rangers, and a lot of overseas content, is that it's supposed to be Episodic. Power Rangers, Masked Rider (Kamen Rider), etc etc were all presented as "real life" or soap operas. That meant they had to break the dreamy veil by shooting at higher frame rates, which is expensive with film. Naturally, you move to video, and everything becomes awesome.

So, this is sort of a tradition bleeding over from that reality, and its got a target audience that likes seeing this material. There ARE a lot of overseas products that are acquired at twenty-four(ish) frames, however.

It's always important to know who you're selling to and what they watch.

 

[PaulGriffith]

The deal with shows like Power Rangers, and a lot of overseas content, is that it's supposed to be Episodic. Power Rangers, Masked Rider (Kamen Rider), etc etc were all presented as "real life" or soap operas. That meant they had to break the dreamy veil by shooting at higher frame rates, which is expensive with film. Naturally, you move to video, and everything becomes awesome.

The reasons soap operas and the such look like video and have the higher frame rate is because they are video. They produce 5 - 1 hour shows a week, the budget and time needed for film is unreasonable for that. From what i understand most are only a week or two ahead max and almost all of it is done in one or two takes, multiple cameras. By recording what they output in, it saves time editing and converting.

Power Rangers had to produce lot's of shows as well, with even smaller budgets. Thus the reason for cheaper cameras (and cardboard box cities haha).

I think most prime time shows are still done on film. Not all of course. They have been making the transition to higher end digital cameras over the past 5-10 years, but when you can afford it most people still like film.

 

[Kholi]

The reasons soap operas and the such look like video and have the higher frame rate is because they are video. They produce 5 - 1 hour shows a week, the budget and time needed for film is unreasonable for that. From what i understand most are only a week or two ahead max and almost all of it is done in one or two takes, multiple cameras. By recording what they output in, it saves time editing and converting.

Soap Operas could EASILY shoot film on today's wages. I've had a few moments with a director that does guest directing and his primary thing is that 24P would break the life-like appeal to female audiences of a soap. If it looks fake, they don't believe it. It's just a show

The life-like draw is a boon and an aesthetic choice right now.

Similar to video games: having the ability to produce content at any frame rate, it's still generally 29.97 or higher to attach an aspect of realism to rendered objects. The higher the frame rate, the smoother (of course) and more engaging the game and its cut scenes.

Most shows that produce as much content are still shot on film, 16mm and 35mm, multiple cameras at times.

Power Rangers had to produce lot's of shows as well, with even smaller budgets. Thus the reason for cheaper cameras (and cardboard box cities haha).

Haha ,yeah, cardboard cities rock.

But, from a Hong Kong SC--another mentor of mines--they could have easily shot film. It was a two fold decision to go for the soap aesthetic, which overseas is actually more accepted than the cinematic since television is the big get (including anime), not feature films.

I think most prime time shows are still done on film. Not all of course. They have been making the transition to higher end digital cameras over the past 5-10 years, but when you can afford it most people still like film.

Right, most are still shot on film. Some are transitioning to digital, like No Ordinary Family shoots Alexa (or at least was shooting Alexa. Did that change?).

 

[sonnyboo]

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't almost all television shows and music videos shot at 30FPS? I don't hear anyone claiming that "Lost" looks "amatuerish".

Actually, I have no idea what frame rate "Lost" was shot at, but I'm quite confident that there are a ton of television productions that look terrific, that are shot at 30FPS.

It's the cinematography, camerawork, acting, choreography, VFX, editing, everything BUT frame rate.

Well, 30 FPS is not exactly the issue. 29.97 frames per second is often times 60 interlaced fields, not frames - which is the dreaded "video" look of the past, which this movie even on youtube, in a natively progressive video world, belies the origins of the 60i look.

There is a deep ceded psychological response that has been reinforced for years. VIDEO = CHEAP. In actuality, it's 60i looking video looks cheap. Also, the psychology is that 60i is "real" and progressive is "narrative". Hence, the TV news and talk shows use the 60i interlaced look, and narrative storytelling like dramas and movies use progressive looks, IE film or 24P.

So the frame rate itself is not the issue; it is the interlaced look of video, as well as the color curves with crushed blacks and better contrast ratio of film that all play a part.

The video trailer in question was definitely 60i, poorly lit, and with NO DEPTH OF FIELD show it to be what the audience psychologically relates to as "amateur".

 

[sonnyboo]

Soap Operas could EASILY shoot film on today's wages. I've had a few moments with a director that does guest directing and his primary thing is that 24P would break the life-like appeal to female audiences of a soap. If it looks fake, they don't believe it. It's just a show
Most shows that produce as much content are still shot on film, 16mm and 35mm, multiple cameras at times.

Some Soaps HAVE switched to 24p. I know GUIDING LIGHT switched to the Canon GH-A1's before their demise. All of them have converted to HD, but not all of them are doing a progressive look.

Most NEW TV shows are no longer shooting 35mm or super 16mm film. Last year and this year's pilot season went to over 75% HD and not film. When they do shoot film, they use 2 perf or any number of cost cutting measures.

Showtime's shows are exclusively shot with Sony F23 and F35 HD cameras and no longer originate any original shows on film.

Didn't every single CSI just switch over to HD over film?

 

[Cracker Funk]

EDIT: Just answered my own question, after noticing something Sonnyboo wrote. Wow, old TV shows were shot on film? I thought they were all video.

 

[Kholi]

Some Soaps HAVE switched to 24p. I know GUIDING LIGHT switched to the Canon GH-A1's before their demise. All of them have converted to HD, but not all of them are doing a progressive look.

Most NEW TV shows are no longer shooting 35mm or super 16mm film. Last year and this year's pilot season went to over 75% HD and not film. When they do shoot film, they use 2 perf or any number of cost cutting measures.

Showtime's shows are exclusively shot with Sony F23 and F35 HD cameras and no longer originate any original shows on film.

Didn't every single CSI just switch over to HD over film?

Maybe over this year, that's probably right.

Shows like Breaking Bad, United States of Tera etc are all film still.

I do know that No ordinary Family at least started out on Alexa, did they change?

Edit here: Also! I keep forgetting that I've been a ghost for the last half year or more while producing a feature. Only thing I make time to watch are VFX tests! haha. I'm playing more video games and writing more, and spending way too many hours on forums and reading the trades.

Television? Not on my radar as much.

Definitely down to ingest more accurate information! So, please, correct me if I'm WAY off.

 

[reel_]

It's simple:

The color correction
Framerate
And cos It's using a very small sensor! Google image sensor.
It looks like it's been filmed with a poor DV cam.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Looks god awful, but I must give them one point for this inventive "how to dodge an alien tendril" trick.

Oh, the jokes are endless...

Ninja Beaver vs. Alien Appendage!

I was going to say this exact same thing.

BRAVO TO THE DIRECTOR!

 

[knightly]

A goodly chunk of this is the cinematography, the color space of video and the way they treated it in post production (I'm firmly in the 24p isn't as important to the "film look" as everyone seems to think it is camp).

My first impression is that the images were lit correctly, but that they simply darkened the whole image in post to make it look "night time" It didn't work. The key lights were good for a day time scene, but too strong for a nighttime scene - regrading it to be less "day" light would help a bit.

The way the lights, mids and darks relate to one another are the part that SCREAMS video to me... it's all a bit too crisp as well. Film has irregular round bits that define a "pixel", whereas video uses perfect grids of rectangular elements... so edges look too pristine... 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.

All they really need to do is get the sets, costumes and makeup to the level of detail used in film based cinema... along with the foreground and background lighting being controlled better as they relate to one another. If folks spent as much time learning to sew, hammer and paint as they did questing after the "film look"... they'd find it I'm going to do a CC test to see if I can make that frame above more cinematic here in a second.

 

[knightly]

Original:

With some warmth added to the mids to bring the skin tone back and differentiate the background from the foreground using color. And a small bit of vignette to focus the viewer's eye on the action:

Here's the same with more vignette:


This is all just color correction and vignetting (power windows)... I brightned up the mids and colored them a bit to stretch the blacks out a bit to make it look as if we're able to see into them farther than we really can... since there's no brights to speak of at all, there was plenty of room to stretch it out.

 

[knightly]

Here, the Highlights are WAAAY too strong for the rest of the image...

For the sake of argument though, rather than correct that - I just added a vignette to show how they can direct the viewer's eye... nothing done but the vignette here:

Here's the same image with the levels balanced better and a bit of color brought back:

 

[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:

 

[knightly]

One last one - This should show the importance of controlling the exposure ratio between the background and the foreground... and the importance of skin tones for associating emotionally with a character on screen.

skin tone brought back and mids and highlights jacked up into proper(ish) exposure... then a vignette to draw the eye again... I probably used it a bit strongly, but less opacity on the vignette seemed too subtle to me.


The whole production could have benefitted from better control of exposure ratios (basically, more fill and less heavy handed color correction).

 

[sonnyboo]

Knightly, you ROCK.

 

[knightly]

Thanks SB - High praise indeed

I figured it was time to show rather than tell some of the bits I'd been talking about for a year or two when folks were talking about the "film look." And using images that are specifically the ones being referenced starts from a place of mutual examination so the resulting examples have more impact.

My use of vignetting here is a bit strong, but even more subtle use will gently lead the eye to the part of the screen you want... one could even consider brightening the eyes to draw the viewer there specifically... or the length of the sword in the last one... the face as a whole perhaps could be saturated while desaturating the rest of the image with a gentle feathered transition between the two.

I'll gladly grade your next production