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

[Edward Hall]

Great images and insight.

 

[Illya Friedman]

The truth of the matter is that everything ever shot on any flavor of film, be it 8mm or IMAX has the "film look". What I think the original poster wants to achieve is a professional "Hollywood" look, which of course varies from something like 28-Days Later (on one end of the spectrum) to Interstellar (on the other).

Ultimately words like "filmic" and "film look" are meaningless if you want to communicate about how something looks. The OP lacked the visual media vocabulary of to communicate what it was they were trying to achieve.

Besides cost, this is what I believe the reason is that Canon DSLRs have been so popular, particularly with non-technical folk involved in this trade, because so many people out there associate highly saturated colors and high contrast blacks as building blocks of the typical "Hollywood" look.

Canon delivers that look right out of their DSLRs (in their highly compressed 8-bit glory) and it's why people like myself find themselves embroiled in long conversations with those who say (insert respected camera here) doesn't look as "filmic" when compared to a 7D.

I'm actually surprised there haven't been more threads like this. The 'look of film' was the marketing speak used to promote Red camera products at it's inception, and I have hardly met anyone who would claim that is what a Red camera delivers without proper post production used in conjunction with proper production techniques.

 

[Marc Wielage]

The truth of the matter is that everything ever shot on any flavor of film, be it 8mm or IMAX has the "film look". What I think the original poster wants to achieve is a professional "Hollywood" look, which of course varies from something like 28-Days Later (on one end of the spectrum) to Interstellar (on the other).

The problem is that there's an ugly film look and a beautiful film look, and lots of stuff inbetween. Merely shooting on 35mm doesn't automatically improve the lighting, composition, camerawork, lenses, focus, art direction, and all the other things that make an image great.

Give an amateur idiot a 65mm film camera, and they're still going to make ugly pictures. Give Roger Deakins a $399 GoPro, he'll find a way to make great pictures.

It ain't just the camera. It's the cinematographer and his or her specific choices for lighting, contrast ratio, filtration, lenses, exposure, depth of field, shutter speed, and so on.

 

[Jarek Zabczynski]

I just turn the camera on and magic happens.

 

[Illya Friedman]

The problem is that there's an ugly film look and a beautiful film look, and lots of stuff inbetween.

I believe you underlined my point- all of which are "film looks" when inelegantly described.

Case in point, a job I turned down but wish I had taken- shot SD on the Sony VX1000 http://mpgstudios.com/film/sweet-short-film/

 

[Paul Sage]

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.

Don't forget Siggy Ferstl.

 

[Carey Lee Coffey]

I asked this same question 20+ years ago in a suite at the American Film Market to the President of DeLuxe Labs, Bud Stone. He said it was lighting.

I disagree.

I just watched Die Hard, a very "filmic" movie (shot on film with great lighting), on a TV with the 'fames added feature' switched on and it looked exactly like video.

 

[douglas binford]

The FILM LOOK such a marverlous one, especially if we look at IMAX pictures " interstellar" but what does it really all come down to. I see most you put the way its composed and frame rate
the unfortunate thing is film is a coffee table book we have it, but not a lot of it and its nice to look at once in awhile. So when we examine this under the microscope our audience really doesn't care. It all full circles to the Story... Our backbone what we have been doing before we could speak.:lurk5:

 

[Carey Lee Coffey]

The FILM LOOK such a marverlous one, especially if we look at IMAX pictures " interstellar" but what does it really all come down to. I see most you put the way its composed and frame rate
the unfortunate thing is film is a coffee table book we have it, but not a lot of it and its nice to look at once in awhile. So when we examine this under the microscope our audience really doesn't care. It all full circles to the Story... Our backbone what we have been doing before we could speak.:lurk5:

This discussion is like a merry-go-round.

 

[Jaime Vallés]

I disagree.

I just watched Die Hard, a very "filmic" movie (shot on film with great lighting), on a TV with the 'fames added feature' switched on and it looked exactly like video.

Exactly. "Film look" is a set of parameters that the right tools can easily achieve (24p, mostly, but also wide dynamic range, some grain, 180 degree shutter). "Hollywood look" is where talent comes in, and requires expert lighting, production design, shot composition, camera movement, etc.

If Nolan had shot Interstellar using a 60i camcorder, but everything else in the production (lighting, sets, framing, etc.) remained exactly the same, it would look like video. If Boyle had shot 28 Days Later on film, but everything else in the production remained the same, it would look like film.

Talent and skill have nothing to do with achieving the "film look." Talent and skill have everything to do with achieving the "Hollywood look."

 

[Joe D'Arcy]

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...

Thanks Bjorn. Another great post!

 

[jake blackstone]

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.

Please do not do this. RLF has a Cineon gamma curve and as such, by arbitrarily increasing contrast you will never get a proper image. The only way to correctly work with RLF is to use a proper Cineon to Rec-709 LUT. Because RCX doesn't allow use of LUTs, then the only proper way left is to grade in RCX with RG4.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I just watched Die Hard, a very "filmic" movie (shot on film with great lighting), on a TV with the 'fames added feature' switched on and it looked exactly like video.

The HD master I did of Die Hard for Blu-ray looks just like the film, and Jan De Bont was totally satisfied with the look.

Exactly. "Film look" is a set of parameters that the right tools can easily achieve (24p, mostly, but also wide dynamic range, some grain, 180 degree shutter). "Hollywood look" is where talent comes in, and requires expert lighting, production design, shot composition, camera movement, etc.

I think when people say "the film look," what they really mean is "a very polished, skillful, Hollywood-style look."

Technology writer Mark Schubin has written about the difference between the look of digital and the look of film longer than anybody I know, and he makes some good points in this article:

http://www.schubincafe.com/2002/02/04/the-other-tech/

"The biggest differences between film and video or movies and television may have nothing to do with technology — and everything to do with technique."

 

[David Battistella]

Just taking this back to the OP's thread title and original question.

I think people forget how much work goes into a shot AFTER the shooting day. We are taking about grading, etc in this thread,

Yes, lighting and grading are important but a big budget feature has many minds combining to create "the perfect shot".

Just have a look at what it takes AFTER to pull off a cinematic shot. Be sure to watch right through to the end.
You are not always going to "get the shot" with a camera, some lights and a grading style.

http://www.fxguide.com/featured/journey-to-the-hundred-foot-journey/


Battistella

 

[Jaime Vallés]

The HD master I did of Die Hard for Blu-ray looks just like the film, and Jan De Bont was totally satisfied with the look.

I think he meant the "smooth motion" setting on the TV which generates additional artificial frames to make 24fps look like 60fps. Everything shown with that setting turned on will look like a soap opera, regardless of how well it was shot.

I think when people say "the film look," what they really mean is "a very polished, skillful, Hollywood-style look."

Technology writer Mark Schubin has written about the difference between the look of digital and the look of film longer than anybody I know, and he makes some good points in this article:

http://www.schubincafe.com/2002/02/04/the-other-tech/

"The biggest differences between film and video or movies and television may have nothing to do with technology — and everything to do with technique."

Exactly. The "very polished, skillful, Hollywood-style look" is a direct result of talent and years of experience. The "film look" is pretty much anything shot in 24fps with a 180 degree shutter. Give a 4-year-old kid a film camera and the footage will look like film, regardless of lighting or composition or lack of talent.

 

[Paul Russell]

Please do not do this. RLF has a Cineon gamma curve and as such, by arbitrarily increasing contrast you will never get a proper image. The only way to correctly work with RLF is to use a proper Cineon to Rec-709 LUT. Because RCX doesn't allow use of LUTs, then the only proper way left is to grade in RCX with RG4.

Jake, is there a particular LUT in the Resolve set that you'd recommend to use as Cineon-Rec709?.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Jake, is there a particular LUT in the Resolve set that you'd recommend to use as Cineon-Rec709?.

All that can be done totally manually and looks fine. All you need is a modicum of skill and experience. There's no need to use a LUT just to get from Cineon, Log space, or RedLogFilm to Rec709. Just turn the knobs until you like the picture.

 

[Steve Das]

All that can be done totally manually and looks fine. All you need is a modicum of skill and experience. There's no need to use a LUT just to get from Cineon, Log space, or RedLogFilm to Rec709. Just turn the knobs until you like the picture.

Exactly. So what is with all of this LUT mania-fever going around.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

"Film look" - the interpretation of the visual aesthetic in the mind of the observer, reflecting the product of complex collaborative effort invested in visual imaging, related to every aspect which affects the overall visual experience, ranging from scene, medium and capture device to post and content display.

 

[Paul Russell]

All that can be done totally manually and looks fine. All you need is a modicum of skill and experience. There's no need to use a LUT just to get from Cineon, Log space, or RedLogFilm to Rec709. Just turn the knobs until you like the picture.

That's normally what I do, but I have a lot of respect for Jake's work so I thought I would ask.