How do you define what the "film look" really is? Is it purely technical, such as shutter speed, frame rate, and depth of field? Or is there more to it than that, such as lighting and composition?
What is the "film look"?
How do you define what the "film look" really is? Is it purely technical, such as shutter speed, frame rate, and depth of field? Or is there more to it than that, such as lighting and composition?
No.Originally Posted by Bertzie
Yes indeed.
Some people also insist it must not be 50i or 60i, but only 24p...
In the most basic since it refers to the 24fps frame rate. After that, the definitions become more diverse.
Some might say that it's the grain that give it its appeal. While others my be attracted to its wide dynamic range. Finally, theres an organic nature about film in which the colors merge with a more natural warmth.
Personally I think there something to admire about that warmth and random qualities of subtle gradation of hues in film that video still struggles to replicate. Granted, video get closer every year, but its still not quite there yet.
That being said could you tell without prior knowledge which was which? In extreme cases, yes. In others it's not so easy to tell them apart, is it?
Some things about film don't need to be replicated.
24fps is one, originally being the best compromise between economy of film consumpion and the slowest frame rate at which persistence of vision worked for most folks. Modern theatre equipment now projects each frame twice in order to smooth out the "flicker" effect that gives some people headaches. So we are looking at 48 fps. The women in my family used to not be able to go see a movie without winding up with a headache most of the time.
The "magic" shutter speed of 1/48th of a second: That was simply "what you got" from a rotating disk shutter with half of it cut out to expose the film, running at 24 fps. 1/50th works just as well with identical motion blur, 1/60th is still close enough so that motion blur is similar.
Film grain is another. The various larger frame size film formats and the continual quest for development of finer grain films have been efforts to reduce or eliminate film grain and achieve higher definition in the projected image.
Film scratches: You can only wind film through a projector (and rewind) so many times before you start getting scratches and "cinch" marks from the abrasion. I remember a product called Permafilm, a liquid you put on a clean piece of cotton and held it so you wound your film between two layers to "coat" the film with it. That resulted in a thin layer of protective lacquer on both sides of the film. Some even put a thin layer of Vaseline on thumbtip and fingertip and rewound film through those fingers to "fill in" scratches (I never had the "guts" to do this, myself. I chose the Permafilm route).
Orange "flashes": Light struck film. If we got this at the end of a roll and it affected part of a "take", anyone who wanted to be taken seriously edited it out. If it was the result of some fool opening a camera to see if it was empty, the proper thing to do was never let the fool near a camera again.
The only excuse for "replicating" any of these things is if the story or documentary includes someone viewing an old film.
The "film" look (or cinema look) we are supposedly seeking is nothing mechanical, it has to do with the visuals, how we achieve them, and how they are "presented" to the viewer. But there is no "magic" frame rate, shutter speed, or any other "setting" that will do this for us; it's a combination of composition, framing, exposure, lighting, focus effect, set design, costuming, and most of all...Story (or Content).
Bruce Foreman
I am a reforming videomaking addict
Not quite.
During the silent era, 16-18* fps was enough for persistence (using a 3-blade projector shutter reduced flicker). Today, animation is often shot on "twos", two frames per drawing, still giving smooth(ish) motion at 12 drawings/sec.
The real reason for 24 fps was optical sound. In 1927, you needed a film speed of 1.5 ft/sec to get a decent frequency response. 24 fps became the standard - a slight error in silent film speed was unnoticeable, but with sound, very audible.
* That's why Chaplin moves so quickly nowadays, at 24 fps...
Where's the "acting"? If we're discussing narrative film, poor acting performance causes the biggest "ouch".
Yep... the same argument comes into play when talking "Film Look".
Yes, film "look" is achieved by setting your camera to widest possible dynamic range for simple colour correction in post. Also making sure you have some basic idea of how to cinematically frame a shot (and photographic knowledge can help here). And then lastly, what makes a film a "film" and not a flop is story and acting.
In fact, chuck everything you think you know about "film look" out the friggin window. Just learn how to control your camera, frame your shot and act convincingly in a gripping story. Screw colour grading, lens types, grain etc... none of that will help a poorly acted and poorly written script.
I've seen gripping stories shot on an iPhone 4. I've seen gripping stories shot on HDV that had none of this shallow depth of field thats all the rage. In fact, the deep depth of field from the iPhone 4 was cinematic in itself (due to framing and acting). Think back to the last Stanley Kubrick film you watched... how often did that man ever cut to a closeup that had really shallow depth of field? And most people consider him a master of film. Same with Hitchcock films.
To finish up, this is where I stick to with my film making nowadays. I frame my shot to look as cinematic as I think it can be. I set shutter speed based on how much movement there will be (or sometimes to darken the shot a little), aperture set narrow for a wide angle shot or wide for a nice closeup, then hit record. Take that home, edit it all together and as far as I'm concerned... it's cinematic because it's MY style, not because I'm replicating anyone else. How else can one discover himself as a film-maker if all you ever do is try to replicate another directors work?
In saying that, borrowing and paying homage is fine. Heck, I do it all the time (most of it scoots under the radar though).
As I've said many times, the most important is what is in front and back of the camera, not the camera itself...
But, that's more about being "cinematic" than "film look" - the latter has at least something to do with technology - you cant get film look by shooting 60i...
Film is expensive. So usually more care and attention goes into the set-up and the content before rolling the camera. Video is cheap, so that naturally leads to a more slapdash and 'cheap' approach that means video looks like video.
If you want a 'film' look, then treat your project with some care and attention, spend time on your script, casting, rehearsals, locations, costumes, lighting, sound and shot design. It's really that simple. If you do all that right, then you can shoot on a Red or shoot on an iphone and it will still look like a film
I've pretty much neglected the silent film era, you're absolutely right with that! I was into 8mm motion picture in the 1960s, had 18fps to contend with and that's the rate my projectors ran at. The "flicker" was quite visible there.Not quite.
During the silent era, 16-18* fps was enough for persistence (using a 3-blade projector shutter reduced flicker). Today, animation is often shot on "twos", two frames per drawing, still giving smooth(ish) motion at 12 drawings/sec.
The real reason for 24 fps was optical sound. In 1927, you needed a film speed of 1.5 ft/sec to get a decent frequency response. 24 fps became the standard - a slight error in silent film speed was unnoticeable, but with sound, very audible.
* That's why Chaplin moves so quickly nowadays, at 24 fps...
Bruce Foreman
I am a reforming videomaking addict
Probably because your projector only had a 2-blade shutter...
Sounds like the good ol' days to me. You get be one with the filmI agree with some of this...in fact most of it. However, we should not get away from the fact that filmmaking is more than just a technical occupation; it is an artistic one. In that, the medium can play an important part. For example, would the Declaration of Independence be as respected a document if it were written on toilet paper? What about your resume? Your diploma? I know thats an exaggeration, but there is a point here.
Artistically speaking film makes a cinematic statement. Sometimes a very important one. One more thing, we know it will be around in 100 years. But what of video?
Last edited by Krane; 2012 May 29th at 14:07.
See, the argument will always come down to this.
As long as those watching it are entertained, and there aren't a crapload of issues like pixelation, crappy mic placement and such... they will still consider it a "film". In the same way when you go to a cinema, sit down to watch a film and you see the technical issues with their film reel (I'm serious here too, I watched "The Hunger Games" at my local cinema with a very visible crease down a third of the film print). As long as you are entertained, does it matter that the crease is there? Or that they used handheld over dolly? No, because you're engaged with the STORY, not the technical side of things.
I agree with you, film-making is about being artistic, not about technical mumbo-jumbo. But unfortunately for us lucky buggers who aren't in the hollywood film industry, we have to learn about 90% of this mumbo jumbo just so we can make our films with our amateur actors and friends. When you're sitting in the directors chair in Hollywood, you can bark orders at your crew and they will convert your artistic blabber into technical mumbo jumbo and act accordingly. But for now, you are your own crew. You need to know how to frame that shot, know what framerate to shoot that at, how you want to edit that scene, what mic you need to capture that dialog (and where to place the damn thing)... and of course, how to light the scene.
I like to think that learning the technical side of things has grounded me as a film maker. Yes, I'm making less films... but I'm making less crap that I'm unhappy with. I'd rather keep that script I wrote months ago for a time where I can get a crew of maybe five people and a cast of decently trained actors to portray those characters. I'd rather learn the ropes of being a technically minded director and camera operator now, and make my amateur films try and stand above the rest of the Youtube crap.
But either way you look at it, we're all artists. Whether or not we stay grounded in the "film look" or not doesn't make us film-makers. It all comes down to what I said in the first place... whether or not we can entertain our audience.
I think "film look" is an antiquated term. I think nowadays there is an "indie look".
The "film look" is antiquated and primarily used by wedding videogaphers and prosumers who use film burns as transitions and add digital grain.
The "indie look" is more modern and doesn't contain these cheesy effects, but it does use lots of DOF and closeups, and slightly shaky cam. But the "indie look" has stories that are relevant.
The "indie look" is pretty desirable, because those films do poorly in theater but do well on DVD, sometimes becoming cult classics.
More often it uses feck all DOF, and all too often crappy 'Blah Blah Blah Films' titles and fakey film classifications/certificates and other nonsense.
Huh?
Don't you mean also rans?The "indie look" is pretty desirable, because those films do poorly in theater but do well on DVD, sometimes becoming cult classics.Convulsing now.lots of DOF and closeups, and slightly shaky cam. But the "indie look" has stories that are relevant.
That depends on the scene, lighting, technical qualifications, medium, resolution, display etc.. Ever see a texture that looked so real you had to touch it to tell it wasn't?
There was a time when I could tell a plastic plant from across the room.
Thats why I say it gets better every year. Still, its these night scenes that give it away. The electronic grain is too linear.
Last edited by Krane; 2012 May 30th at 19:57.
If you can answer why a certain movie has the "film-look" you're after, then you know what to do to achieve it.
I'd say Cinematography is the major aspect in that: lighting, framing, camera movement, composition and visual aspect/color correction.
Everything else is purely either technical or psychological.
For sure. All working in harmony.
Most indie films made by people who are serious about it are transferred to film. The only people concerned with a "film look" are people who don't go to film like wedding videographers. The people who made "crank 2" did not have to worry about any type of "film look". They shot it in digital 24p, but even if they had shot it in 60i it still would have been transferred to film and still would have looked good. Many documentaries are transferred from 60i to 24fps film and they look good just like film.
Like I said, "film look" is an amateur term, used by filmmaking enthusiasts and direct-to-digital types mostly. People who make a film and don't get it transferred to film aren't serious enough to take seriously IMO. They require the "film look" because they aren't serious enough to come up with the $15k or so to do the transfer.
Last edited by blondandfun; 2012 May 31st at 04:52.
B&F - you talk without knowing. "Film Look" has been a buzzword in the industry already since the early 1980s.
(I know, I worked with Panavision's first Panacam video camera imported to Finland, and it was hailed for its "Film Look"... !
panacam.jpg
Your opinions are antiquated, which is pretty much anticipated given that are you are OLD AS F*CK!!!
I'll be old one day, don't think I'm arrogant, but most people dont' give a damn about WHAT sorry Azz buzzwords you can pull up from your golden days.
Languages change, and Hell, you don't even speak the freakin language that the O.P. was addressing anyways! Not natively at least!
Again, not to sound arrogant to other cultures or languages, but Languages and words do change.... society changes GREATLY every 10 years... I think most people don't know when they are living a lie. We Americans did not know that in 2007 when things looked upward we were all in a lie. Language changes.
Take my advice if you want to live another 10-20 years, you'll thank me at your funeral!
Last edited by blondandfun; 2012 June 2nd at 02:38.
Blondie is drunk again.
In other news, Film Look now applies to video as well. Just look at Red, Arri Alexa and such. Besides, who the hell cares what its shot on? As long as it LOOKS GOOD, and Entertains you.
If film look is an amateur term, I'm okay with that. I don't know wtf I'm doing. That's why I asked.
Yeah, and in many threads, too!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
