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

[Simon Knight]

Joshua,
The reason people are being a little harsh is because they are defending the professionals with years of experience. I don't know how much a talented color grader earns but its a huge salary because of the experience gained over many years learning a subtle craft. What the OP is asking for is a "free app" for it. Please circumvent "years of talent and experience" and replace with a "drop in filter." Surely Hollywood would have saved itself millions by now if that could be done? In a similar way you're taking Resolve, an up-until-recently multi-thousand-dollar grading software and expecting instant results. I bet if you took a car and went around a track and then let a professional Formula One driver around the same track in the same car - they'd be quicker. Why? Same car, same track.

If you want instant "fake" results I can vouch for either Magic Bullet Looks/Mojo or if you're color correcting yourself, start with a LUT replicating Kodak or Fuji film loaded into Resolve. Ask Bjorn on here. His LUTs are stunning starting points...

SK

 

[Craig Parkes]

Joshua, I guarantee there was either lighting or lighting control on almost every exterior shot in Hobbiton (except Helicopter shots or extremely wide establishers/landscapes). Silks, flags, HMIs all sorts of things would have been used in a mixture of lighting control and actual lighting to achieve the desired look. They had very big trucks with very big lights on set for a reason.

 

[dio Zafi]

Could be it was transfered to film for release.

 

[Saumene Mehrdady]

The problem I always see is people thinking the "film look" is a series of settings or some kind of formula that can be objectively quantified, when in reality it's an aesthetic/subjective thing and if it CAN even be "classified", then most of it is lighting and grading. But the problem is that we keep comparing digital to film and we aren't appreciating digital for DIGITAL, which gives you the ability to manipulate the 0's and 1's to any type of look you want, be it filmic or psychedelic or somber or whatever.

 

[Tommaso Alvisi]

Audiences have a standard they are used to when viewing a film in the cinemas.

Joshua, it really depends on which audience you are referring to...for example my "standard" is movies from late 80s / early 90s...
I'm quite sure new generations will be accustomed to 4k 120p soon...
It also isn't a matter of recipes...tell us what you would like to know, we'll try to help you.

 

[Peter Strietmann]

One thing that is for sure is the film look means different things to different people. While it is good to know your paints and brushes it is also good to visually push the confines of a perceived aesthetics. Take what we know now and move on, make mistakes. Don't get caught up in the thought that there is only one way to achieve what you are creating. Otherwise nostalgia becomes the dogma of the day.

 

[Walter battani]

I saw vídeos of the canon 1dc and i think it seem very filmic, maybe the new color science of the dragon make to achieve the film color more easy.

 

[Pablo Moreno]

Great stuff has happened because talented people didn't know that what they did is actually impossible

Sometimes (but not often, I admit) lack of knowledge is what makes new stuff happen...

Cheers!

G

hey Gunleik you cut your hair man, looking good buddy..

You are 100% right, lack of knowledge is what makes new stuff happen sometimes because most inventions are discovered by pure accident, and usually from people that were trying to do something totally unrelated.. cheers..

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

I have never heard a real DP describe anything as "flimic". It has no universally understood meaning. Asking the question means you are very far from actually knowing how, and teh answer would be hundreds of pages long, and then we'd have to show you hands-on, and still then maybe you wouldn't be able to do it.

Footage filtered through Mojo does not look like a high budget movie - it makes your footage look like a no-budget movie with no one available who had any real lighting or grading skill and/or a cheesy wedding video and/or a crappy corporate video with pretensions of being "filmic".

This kind of question is like being on a screenwriting forum and asking "where can I download blockbuster hit generating screenplay software?" or "What is the trick for writing a Blacklist screenplay?"

 

[Vithya Sharma]

I think DaVinci Best and Lighting very Important !!

 

[Alexey Datsenko]

I saw the next thing on the film set, there was fixed yellow filters on the kinoflo and picture was very "film look" even in the monitor some orange scintone and so picture was very "film look", after color correction it will be very cool I think. So lighting firstly, especially scintone and Davinci then.

 

[Jaime Vallés]

There's a big difference between "film look" and "Hollywood look." If you give a 4 year old a film camera, the footage will look like film, regardless of how poorly shot it is. The "Hollywood look," on the other hand, depends entirely on lighting, production design, makeup, wardrobe, framing, sound, sound, and sound, IN ADDITION to the "film look."

The "film look" requires no skill. Only the right tools and settings. 24fps, 1/48 shutter speed, somewhat shallow depth of field, wide dynamic range, a little bit of grain, and a nice transition to blown out highlights. All of these can easily be achieved on an Epic (or any other modern digital cinema camera) with the proper settings selected.

The "Hollywood look" will require years of experience and training, and a talented and dedicated crew. There are no shortcuts there.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

This is the exact kind of response that I'm talking about. Critical and condescending to emerging film-makers who are trying to learn. There are little basic details that define 'filmic' such as 24p in comparison to 50i. Shallow Depth of Field in comparison to everything in focus. High contrast color in comparison to flat colored images. These are things audiences are used to in films they watch at the movies. And if OP doesn't know then shouldn't it be for us here on the forums which are supposed to help people and answer their questions instead of putting them down and criticizing them actually help him?
When people refer to a 'filmic' look they are referring to what they see at cinemas.
It is the same concept as when someone turns on '200htz or Motion+' on a TV set. It makes films looks like 'home video'. Why? How? Simply put because you loose motion blur. This then stipulates that motion blur is a part of the cinematic feel. To not understand what 'filmic' means shows a lack of understanding audience expectations. Sure it can mean many things, but the general consensus is listed above. It's how non-film people distinguish Hollywood style films from home video.

Citizen Kane looks very "filmic", yet it was shot with very deep depth of field on almost every frame. Most of Hitchcock films have very deep DOF, yet I would not claim these works look like video So... What you are saying is not really an answer, and it is correct to say there is no simple answer, and that to help the poster, one should indeed point out that he is looking in the wrong direction, that he is ooking for easy "Magic Bullets" that do not in fact exist, and who's pursuit which only benefit the salesmen of "one-click" software, not him as a filmmaker.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

There's a big difference between "film look" and "Hollywood look." If you give a 4 year old a film camera, the footage will look like film, regardless of how poorly shot it is. The "Hollywood look," on the other hand, depends entirely on lighting, production design, makeup, wardrobe, framing, sound, sound, and sound, IN ADDITION to the "film look."

The "film look" requires no skill. Only the right tools and settings. 24fps, 1/48 shutter speed, somewhat shallow depth of field, wide dynamic range, a little bit of grain, and a nice transition to blown out highlights. All of these can easily be achieved on an Epic (or any other modern digital cinema camera) with the proper settings selected.

The "Hollywood look" will require years of experience and training, and a talented and dedicated crew. There are no shortcuts there.

Well put. Agreed.

 

[Shiblon Wixom]

So basically, you're hinting that the "film" look requires the right tools and equipment, a lot of knowledge about lighting and grading footage, and a big collaborative effort from several key individuals with years of experience and/or education. That seems simple enough.

Most movie makers start by picking an area, like lighting or post, and mastering that area of knowledge, then moving to another area of knowledge, eventually knowing the whole moving making process inside out.

 

[jake blackstone]

Ask Bjorn on here. His LUTs are stunning starting points...

Once again, "his LUTs" are not really his LUTs. Those are Autodesk LUT's, that are automatically installed, if you install Smoke, Flame or Lustre. If you don't have one of those, then you really can't use those LUTs, as those LUTs are not quite legal to distribute.
Sorry for going on the tangent...

 

[Jaime Vallés]

So basically, you're hinting that the "film" look requires the right tools and equipment, a lot of knowledge about lighting and grading footage, and a big collaborative effort from several key individuals with years of experience and/or education. That seems simple enough.

In a nutshell, yes.

A film needs talent, vision, experience, and hard work, in addition to the right tools. If you give Spielberg and his amazing crew a Sony PD150 (MiniDV, 60i, fixed-lens camcorder) to shoot a movie, it will look like video, regardless of how good everything else in the production is. It very well may be an awesome movie, but it won't look like film.

 

[Joachim Hoge]

I have to agree with Joshua, it can be quite intimidating to start out. Still remember posting my first post on cinematographer when I was a film student in the 90's and how amazed I was that someone very knowledgable answered me within the hour. I was always greatfull for the help I got.

 

[M Most]

I agree with what you guys are saying. Just irritates me when people come on these forums meant to help people and instead criticize. Everyone has to start somewhere.

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.

 

[PatrickFaith]

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.