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

[Stephen Williams]

David, in your opinion, do audiences care?

Hi,

I am not David but I know an advertising agency that concluded with Direct sales ads, the response was greatest if shooting on 35mm and least shooting Beta SP.. Commercials were shot using 35mm, 16mm, HD Cam, DigiBeta & Beta SP, surprisingly the sucess was also in that order.

Stephen

 

[James T Mather]

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

er...not necessarily

http://www.trailerseite.de/archiv/trailer-1990/8760-hamlet-film.html


www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=133405

 

[amrrahmy]

u call that a good script?!!!!

 

[James T Mather]

It was Hamlet written by William Shakespeare - no dialogue or scenes were changed, only the directing took a unique slant - I was just citing your example.

It just seems like bad directing can screw up any script - even Hamlet.

 

[amrrahmy]

screen adaptation Michael Almereyda

 

[James T Mather]

He was the director.

 

[g3nov3s3]

Please don't hijack my thread....
So....does anyone know how to get the look from the last screenshot I posted?

 

[James T Mather]

It seems to me what you are generally responding to is the skin tones, as all the pictures you have posted have little in common visually aside from the fact that the people in the shots have sallow skin. It has very little to do with what I would characterise as "film look" over video look (in fact the fist shot of the Asian girl looks, to me, to be digital - or at least processed through a digital system. Looks too "clean" for film IMVHO - it might well be film but it has a NeatVideo quality about it)

Bottom line? Cast people with skin tones like that (Latino, Asian, Italian). No Irish. Unless they happen to be Colin Farrell. You might also look at Skin tone enhancer filters and sometimes polarisers can do nice things to smooth out skin but must be carefully monitored for consistency as they will change according to the angle of prevailing light. They also have a pretty heavy penalty as regards light loss.

EDIT : As an acid test of the top theory take a look at Linda Hamilton's skin tone in Terminator 2 and see does it pass your "film look" test. (shes very pale) - I'll wager that it doesn't.


....To get the film look aside from that keep a low depth of field, don't crank up the sensor ISO (gain), stop your highlights blowing out (pick your shots accordingly - don't for example frame someone against a blown out overcast sky), leave the shutter at 1/48 or 1/50, don't have people wearing white clothes or stage action against white walls, consider adding some grain in post (very, very little - 2% - it should be undetectable in a still image but might add subtle "swim" to the image). And learn how to light - on the faces in your pictures generally seem to have a high keylight with diffusion (even the exterior by the way the buildings act as flags). That's it.

EDIT : also I find digital systems tend to "jump" on shiny skin. In a studio actors tend to sweat more as there is usually very little ventilation and lots of lights burning (and they're under pressure) - perspiration comes out under the makeup and you get a subtle kick from the lights which digital "feels" more than film (due to the latitude - they "pop" slightly more and should be watched out for). Summary: the makeup person should be right on top of shine (not to say they shouldn't normally but on digital I find I have to really keep an extra eye on it and check it before every take).

Hope that helps.