How do you get that specific organic film look????

[NateWeaver]

Truth is that with a history of cinema that includes color images ranging from "Singin' in the Rain" to "Seven", from Super-8 home movies to IMAX films, there is scarcely a single film "look".

Agreed. I would suggest that maybe a "film look" can be therefore defined (in this discussion) by what video usually has, and what film NEVER has.

-Use of sharpening or edge enhancement. Or if you insist on using it, do it in post where it can be controlled well.

-1/24th shutter

-That peculiar lifted black and gamma curve common to many video cameras. Modify gamma and or black point in any way in post, and you've likely taken care of a signature video give-away.

 

[amrrahmy]

Contrast... contrast... contrast. Shooting for contrast... grading for contrast.

Plus if film negative has more dynamic range than digital, then why does adding contrast and thus decreasing dynamic range actually make a digital image look more like film?

facetmedia said shooting for contrast, not adding contrast.

if a movie doesn't have the film look(including features shot with film), it's because it was not done properly, it was never about the diff between film and digital artifacts.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

Film isn't "organic", it's chemical

 

[pango]

I know that to make digital footage look like film you need to shoot it at 24p,you need a shallow depth of field,etc....
So, how exactly do you do that color correction to achieve a film look?

I just wonder why people are obsessed with this "tastealike" ideology. Video is not film, so what?!

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

There is a trick that can imporve the digital cinema camera, if you put a wobble plate in front of the sensor and project uncompressed then the image details move from one sensor to two a second then to another and so on, you eye follows the image detail around and you see more detail than in a static image.

Film is always moving around, you cannot scan film and have the details stand still even when you use an optical printer movement like we do.

If you put this weave into the digital cinema it will be more like film.

But if you use compression, it will try to filter out the image weave and hold the details on one pixel, and so reduce the apparent resolution.

If you weave too fast the benefit is lost since you eyes cannot track the moving image, it just looks like motion blur, so there is a critical speed that the image should wobble around near pixels, something about an 8 frame cycle, with 24 frames per second... maybe?

---

The bigger issue is can the camera lens resolve a single pixel at 4K on a 6K sensor without producing aliasing artifacts, that is why you need the heavy OLPF. With a Bayer filter you should have 8K to 12K in order to get 4K after using a OLPF heavy enough to remove all aliasing and chroma moire artifacts, so it is not so much resolution that needs more pixels, but artifact reduction. You cannot get by without the OLPF when you use a sharp lens, or you will get too many artifacts, in other words, the lens used on a Bayer sensor SHOULD not be sharp enough to light up just one of the four pixels in each four pixel group, hence the resolution of the lens should be 1/3 the target pixel count, so to get 4K you use a 12K sensor...

As you see in the sample images above, the camera lens used does not come close to a single pixel resolution, the general rule is that a lens can focus on 1/1000 its focal length, so a 50mm lens makes a spot about 1/500 inch. And the daylight shot may have been stopped down to the point where diffraction limits the resolution to less than 2K? With super good lenses on film you should never stop down past f/11 and probably ONLY shoot at f/6.3 or so.

----

For archive use, it is good to scan the film at 6K pixels though, so that you know that you are holding as much as you can within reason...

Interesting and very informative post [from another thread]... thanks to the OP.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

facetmedia said shooting for contrast, not adding contrast.

if a movie doesn't have the film look(including features shot with film), it's because it was not done properly, it was never about the diff between film and digital artifacts.

He said "grading for contrast", which suggests color-correcting for a snappier look.

"Never" is a big word, sometimes the difference is due to the inherent technical qualities of either process. For example, shooting with an interlaced-scan video camera produces a unique non-film-like effect. Shooting with the shutter turned off, another thing a film camera cannot do. These are technical characteristics or features of certain digital cameras that cannot be easily created by a film camera or by film stock.

And again, if it comes down to things being done "properly" then how does it solve the problem that no movie is shot perfectly, i.e. "properly"? Any system that relies on flawless execution to work "properly" is not really ready for mainstream production, where mistakes and flaws, some intentional, some not, are rather commonplace.

This was the point I was trying to make, that when film f--- up, it does it in film-like ways, whereas a digital system capable of delivering very film-like images will still f--- up in uniquely digital ways. And as long as movies are made by flawed human beings, they will have flaws in them.

And who defines what is the "proper" way to make a movie anyway? For some artists, using uniquely digital techniques like shutterless photography or noise, etc. are justified because they feel they are using the format / process to its ultimate capabilities rather than limiting themselves merely to what a film camera can achieve.

 

[Ken Willinger]

I'm wondering if the OP is confusing the "organic" look of film with good film making, whether that be done with Film or Video. We can talk ad infinitum about the details of the stock or what's been done in post or what filter was used etc. but in the end does it look good? Has the DP achieved the look that was asked for? David Mullin is correct in that if you look through the history of filmmaking there is no one organic film look. There are hundreds of film looks. And in the last few years that has included digital. The lines are blurring. In the end it comes down to filmmaking, not the media used to make the film.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I guess I'm just asking for some recognition that there are some differences, whether they "ultimately" matter or not in the big picture (no pun intended)...

as a lover of old and obsolete image technologies like 3-strip Technicolor, Kodachrome, etc. where I cherish those differences, I believe that to some extent, we have to accept that digital images have unique textures to themselves, good or bad. Obviously there is always room for improvement in all imaging technologies, film or digital, but I ultimately believe that it's a bit silly asking one technology to completely mimic another, it's like a clever art forgery. A copy of a Rembrandt is not a Rembrandt, so why not be original? Why not accept that digital cameras are subtly -- or not so subtly -- changing the look of movies, rather than persist with this notion that there are no real differences or that it doesn't matter what you shoot on.

We are supposed to be ARTISTS, we are supposed to care about the details of what brush we choose, what colors we pick, what textures we emphasize, so our tools are important to us. We care so that audiences don't have to care.

 

[Tico Llaurador]

We care so that audiences don't have to care.

David, in your opinion, do audiences care?

 

[Ken Willinger]

I guess I'm just asking for some recognition that there are some differences, whether they "ultimately" matter or not in the big picture (no pun intended)...
Why not accept that digital cameras are subtly -- or not so subtly -- changing the look of movies, rather than persist with this notion that there are no real differences or that it doesn't matter what you shoot on.

We are supposed to be ARTISTS, we are supposed to care about the details of what brush we choose, what colors we pick, what textures we emphasize, so our tools are important to us.

This is exactly why there are so many filmmakers now using and experimenting in digital cinema. This is why Red is becoming more readily accepted (along with Genesis etc.). This is the same reason why films like "One From The Heart" were made using groundbreaking technology for the time or even "Chuck and Buck" using a camera like the Sony PD150.

Filmmakers should push the limits of the technology available. I try to sell my Red to every producer and director I work with. I want to move forward. At the same time I love what's been done before me and try to use those influences in what I may do in my next project. Yes I recognize that there are some differences and without them how boring would it all be?

 

[amrrahmy]

some viewers(and that's alot) actually care about the quality of the movie(not the picture quality), the actual piece of art that they want to see.but studios and producers cant see why fewer people are seeing there movies.

having mistakes or parts of the production not up to par, is different than having complete f***-ups.
some cinematography problems wont stop (for ex 12 angry men) from being a masterpiece.

 

[Dj Joofa]

I believe that to some extent, we have to accept that digital images have unique textures to themselves, good or bad.

Glad that you mentioned "texture". In addition to several oft-cited notions of film vs. digital (viz., frame rate, DOF, lighting, DR, etc.) a fact that is normally overlooked is the texture and importantly the "sharpness" attribute of digital texture (cf.- the usual mantra of film image is "soft" where as digital is "harsh"). However, unfortunately, a common approach to convert the harsh digital texture into soft film texture is to use a (low pass) filter to make the image uniformly soft.

Such, an approach does not take into account that on a camera negative the first layer is typically blue, and after a "yellow" filter, red and green layers. That is, the sharpest image on the film layer is formed on the blue layer, where actually it needs to be the least sharp considering the response of human vision to blue type colors. No wonder that many (all?) print films use a green layer on the top instead of blue as the image does not need those sharpness attributes anymore as in the camera negative.

A proper model of such selective sharpness attribute will result in making the digital texture have the same look and feel as the film texture. It should be doable.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't think viewers are all that universal or monolithic in how they perceive a movie -- afterall, I'm an audience member too and I was noticing the cinematographic aspects of movies even as a teenager, before I had any education on the subject. I remember wondering why the lights were glowing in "Superman" and "Close Encounters" when I saw those movies around the time I was 15, and later finding out about the Fog filters and Low Con filters being used on the camera lens. I went out and bought a Fog #2, the same one Geoffrey Unsworth used for "Superman", for my Super-8 camera.

I suspect that even for viewers who aren't, or who don't end up becoming, cinematographers, some notice such details more than others, just as some are more in tune with the use of music or editing or costume design or the nuances of acting. One doesn't have to be a professional in the field to have an aesthetic sensibility.

As much as we all like to say that story, story, story is what matters most, we shouldn't forget that cinema watching can also be an aesthetically pleasing experience, that we can enjoy the visual and aural experience on an immediate and visceral level and sometimes we see movies almost entirely just for that experience, to luxuriate in the images and sounds.

 

[amrrahmy]

well, if:
story was very good(that includes the story to the script point)
direction was ok but nothing special
cinematography was ok but nothing special
u'll end up with a very good movie, were if:
story wasn't that gr8
direction was ok but not special,
and cinematography as good as the direction would let it,
the movie would be acceptable at best(and that's a stretch).

and am talking about the core story and the dialogue before the cinematography tries to shape it into a movie. if it wasn't good enough then it shouldn't have become a movie.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

There isn't one type of movie. Some experimental art movies, for example, may not have a strong narrative element. Saying that story comes first is fine for mainstream cinema, but that doesn't encompass all forms of cinema. There are lots of variations.

One person may love a Terrance Malick movie, while another viewer may think they have weak stories and not enjoy them. We all seek different things from the movies. And we even define what a good story is differently. For one person, that may mean a strong plot while for another, it may mean certain thematic material is covered, while another wants traditional genre structure, while another wants anything but that.

We can generally agree that a good story is important but many of us would disagree as to what a good story was.

There are some episodic films that are loosely plotted, such as Altman's "Nashville", that would not fall under some people's definition of a "good story" -- and it is certainly a case where that film would have been radically different if some other director had made it.

If story really trumped all other elements, then anyone could direct "Hamlet" and make a decent movie out of it, but obviously one could make a very bad version of "Hamlet". Story is important in narrative cinema, but so is storytelling, and good acting, cinematography, editing, production design, etc. are part of the act of storytelling.

But in general I tend to dislike these simplistic notions of what constitutes a good movie because there is too much variation out there in movies and in taste. Some movies are primarily acting experiences, some others are ones involving a complex and intellectually satisfying plot structure, some are lyrical and visual frolics, etc. The person who loves a John Cassavettes movie isn't necessarily a fan of "American in Paris" or "2001" -- or maybe they are. There is probably some viewer out there who enjoys watching Dryer's "Joan of Arc" one afternoon and then an Adam Sandler movie in the evening.

 

[amrrahmy]

the hamlet example was excellent, but who can make a script that has hamlet as the core idea, if a cinematographer and a writer can pull it off, no matter how bad the direction is, it would still be a very good movie, it cant stand alone without cinematography, but it would be gr8 with half-good direction, the balance can be made with an awesome story.
and that's were allot of directors are considered gr8 because of other elements than there work, i can state some big names but allot of people will eat me here, but movies used to be gr8 when there were gr8 writers and gr8 editors, not because of direction.and today we r missing cinematography all together in movies.
i wont state movies that u might think are gr8, but the difference between good and bad stories can be obvious, if not to studios or producers, then at least to artists.

edit:

we r also missing direction among other things.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

M-hm, there are as many ways and POVs as there are people on Earth. Maybe even more.

 

[g3nov3s3]

Look.....I've seen even RED footage that still looked like video, and I've seen HV20 footage that looked like film.
There must be some magic when you color correct the footage.
What exactly do you modify??????
I've played with some digital footage and I've decreased the saturation and increased the contrast to get a "bleach bypass" look. This combined with a warming or cooling filter can look pretty much like film to an untrained eye.
However I've seen footage that looked very natural without any of this tricks.
How exactly do you get footage that looks like this?????
Ignore the 35mm adapter thing. I am more interested in geting those "organic" skin tones(this screenshot is also from a HVX200).

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Film isn't "organic", it's chemical

Thank god!

Look.....I've seen even RED footage that still looked like video, and I've seen HV20 footage that looked like film.
There must be some magic when you color correct the footage.
What exactly do you modify??????
I've played with some digital footage and I've decreased the saturation and increased the contrast to get a "bleach bypass" look. This combined with a warming or cooling filter can look pretty much like film to an untrained eye.
However I've seen footage that looked very natural without any of this tricks.
How exactly do you get footage that looks like this?????
Ignore the 35mm adapter thing. I am more interested in geting those "organic" skin tones(this screenshot is also from a HVX200).

Wow man, you're oversimplyfing it.

First, each camera will require one type of adjustment.
Specially digital "prosumer" cameras that often apply digital sharpening.

And if the sensor is CCD or CMOS and how much resolution it actually has are determinant factors.

Apply the same grading to a PD-150 video and to a RED TIFF, and note the differences between the two.

And grading is a lot more than saturation and contrast. If you wanna get into it look at this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Technique-Digital-Color-Correction/dp/0240809904/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product

 

[Andrae Palmer]

Look.....I've seen even RED footage that still looked like video, and I've seen HV20 footage that looked like film.
There must be some magic when you color correct the footage.
What exactly do you modify??????
I've played with some digital footage and I've decreased the saturation and increased the contrast to get a "bleach bypass" look. This combined with a warming or cooling filter can look pretty much like film to an untrained eye.
However I've seen footage that looked very natural without any of this tricks.
How exactly do you get footage that looks like this?????
Ignore the 35mm adapter thing. I am more interested in geting those "organic" skin tones(this screenshot is also from a HVX200).

In my experiments proper exposure is key. I come from an HVX200 background and just a few months back i was exposing just via the look on the LCD. Now I'm exposing primarily with the histogram... I know where my blacks and whites should be on the histogram due to experiments in REDCine. Perhaps this guy exposed in a different manner typical of HVX200 users... light meter, waveform, etc. But what I see is grading, good contrast, pressed blacks, proper color temperature balance, dof.