How to get "film look" on Epic for cinema?

[Noel R.]

Yes, that's true. But what one person interprets as a "simple question," others can easily interpret as arrogance. When someone who's clearly just starting out says to a film industry veteran who's spent many years honing their knowledge, skills, and craft that they can do what the veteran can do because now there are things like Red cameras, that's not seeking knowledge, that's just arrogance. Specific questions are usually answered fairly directly. It's when people say things like "I don't want film school, an arts education, lighting experience, knowledge of film conventions or history, or anything I actually have to spend time and possibly effort on, but how do I get my Red camera to make images like "Skyfall?" that the experienced among us start getting a little upset. Nobody gets upset at healthy curiosity and the desire to learn. Lots of us get upset at those with a seriously inflated sense of entitlement.

Ballet dancers are trained to make their dance moves look effortless but the reality is that it takes years of experience. I think that's sort of the way it is with film. DP's train for years to make their films look great but also seamless. It's the seamless aspect of the film that leads the layman to believe it is effortless. I think most of us have been there at one point or another, and it's only till we tried with failure that we grew the respect for those who are experienced.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

I miss-placed some 70mm clips of 2001, which is slaying me, but if you look by hand at 70 mm film (which to me is the most cinematic) - every frame tells a story. I mean you can pick at random a frame in a reel of a 70 mm film, and you will see a "story" in that frame. [my assumption is they edited out all frames that don't tell a story]

I think that's the awesome thing about RED's DSMC approach (still and motion camera), in that the fundamental is still photography, and a movie is connecting these framed stories.

Indeed.

Kubrick was a master story teller.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, that's true. But what one person interprets as a "simple question," others can easily interpret as arrogance. When someone who's clearly just starting out says to a film industry veteran who's spent many years honing their knowledge, skills, and craft that they can do what the veteran can do because now there are things like Red cameras, that's not seeking knowledge, that's just arrogance. Specific questions are usually answered fairly directly. It's when people say things like "I don't want film school, an arts education, lighting experience, knowledge of film conventions or history, or anything I actually have to spend time and possibly effort on, but how do I get my Red camera to make images like "Skyfall?" that the experienced among us start getting a little upset. Nobody gets upset at healthy curiosity and the desire to learn. Lots of us get upset at those with a seriously inflated sense of entitlement.

Yes, it can be annoying when it seems like the intent of the question is to find a simple fix -- an app, a filter, a piece of cheap technology, some post trick -- and the last thing they want to hear is that the solution is practice, practice, practice. On the other hand, sometimes we read an intent that isn't actually there, it's just a poorly worded question, or the premise of the question itself defies the simple answer that the questioner desires. The worst questions though are ones where the questioner just wants to hear the answer that they already think they know, and it's especially annoying when their answer isn't even correct.

But in struggling to answer these questions, we all learn something in the process... if anything, to ask better questions in the future.

 

[Bob Gundu]

Yes, it can be annoying when it seems like the intent of the question is to find a simple fix -- an app, a filter, a piece of cheap technology, some post trick -- and the last thing they want to hear is that the solution is practice, practice, practice. On the other hand, sometimes we read an intent that isn't actually there, it's just a poorly worded question, or the premise of the question itself defies the simple answer that the questioner desires. The worst questions though are ones where the questioner just wants to hear the answer that they already think they know, and it's especially annoying when their answer isn't even correct.

But in struggling to answer these questions, we all learn something in the process... if anything, to ask better questions in the future.

David, I always appreciate your well thought out responses. Please don't ever change!

 

[Brett Harrison]

This is very true, but looking at OP's original post he didn't ask for a quick fix. it sounded a lot more like 'I don't understand how this was done, maybe it was done with davinici or magic bullet? Can someone shed light on how it was done'. So he was only presuming it was a color grading issue. Naive yes, but still a valid question.

Three cheers for fair-mindedness--and with respect to craft: we all start out 'naive'.

 

[M Most]

It's a combination of lighting and grading. For grading, Pirates of the Caribbean 4 used Davinci, REDLogFilm setting in the decode as their grading starting point.

They also had Dariusz Wolski as their cinematographer, Stefan Sonnenfeld and Steve Nakamura as their colorists, and Charles Gibson as their lead VFX supervisor. I would point out that once technical tools get to a certain level, it's the human talent that makes things what they are.

 

[Brett Harrison]

They also had Dariusz Wolski as their cinematographer, Stefan Sonnenfeld and Steve Nakamura as their colorists, and Charles Gibson as their lead VFX supervisor. I would point out that once technical tools get to a certain level, it's the human talent that makes things what they are.

technical facility and artistic facility are a continuum. The root of the words 'technique' and 'technology' are the same: tekhne, which translates as 'art, skill, craft, method, system'.

 

[Björn Benckert]

It's probably mentioned here all ready (I just skimmed through the thred) you need to start with red log film. It's quite important. If you leave the r3d world with redgamma3 redgamma3. you got a very good color accurate image if you dialed in your white balance etc. but filmlook you are trying to achieve is probably not looking anything like it. I see redgamma3 as kind of looking out trough a clean window... it's very accurate and shows everything outside in perfect color... But if you instead use redlog film and then do all your grading in log and as a final step of your grading you flipp over to lin then you got closer to how the guys in hollywood are doing it. Hench the name I suppose, "redlogfilm"

If you do not want to grade anything more than within redcine I sugest that you set the dial to redlogfilm and then you use the curves to get where you want in term of contrast etc. I would not push to much of a S curve instead try to be more linear with your grading and in the end you apply some of the "alchemy" slider and add film grain, slide your bottom saturation slider (the one next to alchemy) and also apply unsarp mask to tase.. doing it that route usually works quite splendid, atleast for me.

So a normal error I see people do is to use red gamma 3 redgamma 3 and then complain about the stuff looking like video.. well it does as video looks very much like looking out the window...

The above is how I look at these things people here probably have other opions but to me, grading in anything than log is just plain ugly. There is ways of using luts to flip redgamma3 material back to log before you grade but thats involving risks of getting things wrong and ending up with flat blacks, mids, or highlights or all of those. It's actually quite amazing to see how even experienced colorist can run of in the craziest workflows when dealing with r3d's and then complain about the source...

 

[Timur Civan]

i think the film look, is an emotional, engaging image. you know it when you see it. its the work of an artist. its hardly a technical attribute. although i think 24p is the only technical attribute, that contributes. everything else is subjective.

 

[Nick Morrison]

i think the film look, is an emotional, engaging image. you know it when you see it. its the work of an artist. its hardly a technical attribute. although i think 24p is the only technical attribute, that contributes. everything else is subjective.

I agree. I think 24fps...plus proper "framing"...are the base ingredients you need to make something look "filmic". Everything else is the accumulative experience of a talented, and experienced crew (lighting, art direction, camera movement, wardrobe, acting, sound, scouting, etc)

 

[jorge krausch]

film look is FILM! 8mm, 16mm and 35mm!! everything else looks like filmconvert and graded video to me..
i love my red epic but i embrace it as a marvellous digital image. with short DOF lens ectt.. You can make it beautiful but lets call eggs eggs..we're heading for 8k, 12k ect.. 50 fps projections.. nothing wrong with digital cinema. Film is great but we're delaying progress with our nostalgia of motion blur, grain and 24fps.. i wana see 100fps films where nothing blurs on pans and tilts.. with incredibly sharp 12K projections youd think you were there.. rich amazing colors and bokeh backgrounds, I like digital.. so sew me.
my 16mm films look so dated to me now..

 

[David W. Jones]

film look is FILM! 8mm, 16mm and 35mm!! everything else looks like filmconvert.

So let's flash back to say, sitcoms shot on film, like Gilligan's Island or The Brady Bunch. Would you say they have "the film look"?

 

[Danny Dunlop]

So much of the "film look" is in lighting and composition and movement. Despite what thousands of iPhone Youtube tutorials say it's not something you can necessairily achieve in post by cropping to 2.35:1 and cranking the contrast so high it would give Michael Bay a headache.

Sitcoms that shot on film don't have that "film look" because they weren't shot that way. Add all the filters you like, Seinfeld still looks like Seinfeld.

 

[David W. Jones]

So your saying the these TV shows shot on film don't look like film?

 

[Frank Glencairn]

Production design, lighting, movement/framing, and a bit colorgrading - in that order IMHO.

Though we had virtually no budget and no time, these didn't came out too shabby.

 

[Michael Jarvis]

Why not huevos....or possibly huevos rancheros....if you want to spice things up.

 

[Michael Jarvis]

Those are really nice looking images Frank. Well done.

 

[Robino_J]

Those are really nice looking images Frank. Well done.

Yes they are great digital images! - they don't look like film though as expected.

 

[Steve Das]

..Sitcoms that shot on film don't have that "film look" because they weren't shot that way. Add all the filters you like, Seinfeld still looks like Seinfeld.

Very true because those sitcoms are lit up so unnatural to be able to shoot 360 degrees.

...Yes they are great digital images! - they don't look like film though as expected.

Yes..they are well lit but yet still seem a bit flat and crispy..no atmosphere. Just some use of haze/fog would have helped alot.

 

[Edward Hall]

Great thread, thanks