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

[David Mullen ASC]

Not true.

The trick of transferring a digital movie to film for a "film look" was done back in the early 2000's at the height of the Dogma 95 movement for a few movies, but otherwise, it is not done much today.


Of course, for the few exhibitors worldwide that need film prints, digital movies are recorded to film, but that's not so much in order to create a film look, it's just to get prints to those theaters.

Even today for Hollywood movies shot on 35mm film but mix some digital shots or CGI into the movie, the "film look" to match the 35mm camera negative look is done digitally (adding film grain, etc.) and then conformed with the rest of the movie in the D.I., they don't generally resort to digital-to-film-digital just to add a film look.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Could you please tell me how on movies shoot on Epic is getting such amazing "film look" picture?

Money and knowledge

 

[Aaron michaels]

How can you say not true and then say they use to do it that way? It doesn't matter...whatever they do we will never know.If we could do what they do there would be no Hollywood. Rich people stay rich by not giving consumers their secrets.So they make money off feeding out dreams with 3rd party items. Even people that work on film sets for them give you the run around. I only care about how i want my movies to look.

 

[todd k]

How can you say not true and then say they use to do it that way? It doesn't matter...whatever they do we will never know.If we could do what they do there would be no Hollywood. Rich people stay rich by not giving consumers their secrets.So they make money off feeding out dreams with 3rd party items. Even people that work on film sets for them give you the run around. I only care about how i want my movies to look.

For what it's worth, I think he is the 'they' you're talking about.

 

[shashbugu]

"I bought the same canvas and oil paints as Picasso used , but all the art I make looks like beginner crap.
When I go to museums, his work looks SO much better, why is that?"

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

 

[shashbugu]

How do you have access to an Epic and not know the basics of what makes cinematography important? This is probably the most immature and naive question I have ever read. Shooting beautiful films take years and years and years of practice and experimentation. You can't go shoot a major motion picture just because you have an Epic. Learn about production design, special effects, makeup, lighting, grading, visual effects, all the necessary parts of cinema that come together to make a film look the way they do. It's not just a button click, and it's definitely not owning an Epic.

Sorry, this often repeated and repeated and repeated, but its simply not true. Its just presumptive. Talent and experience go together.

 

[shashbugu]

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.

Very Well Put.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

How can you say not true and then say they use to do it that way? It doesn't matter...whatever they do we will never know.If we could do what they do there would be no Hollywood. Rich people stay rich by not giving consumers their secrets.So they make money off feeding out dreams with 3rd party items. Even people that work on film sets for them give you the run around. I only care about how i want my movies to look.

A number of us here on this forum work in Hollywood and we have done nothing BUT give away "secrets" for the past decade!

 

[BRANDON JAMESON]

A number of us here on this forum work in Hollywood and we have done nothing BUT give away "secrets" for the past decade!

NOTHING could be more true.

 

[Ulf Krentz]

A number of us here on this forum work in Hollywood and we have done nothing BUT give away "secrets" for the past decade!

Yes, so true and specially you share so much on your thread. Thank you for your efforts and time put in there!

 

[Brice LeCarre]

As a guy who just bought into the RED ecosystem (RAVEN) I would agree on the incredible generosity of most of you. For that, you are the true heart of this forum.
Nothing is perfect and we should not give more importance to those who don't deserve it.
Rudeness and arrogance is sad but in my experience is only a small minority.
Because of RED bold move into the "lower" market more and more people who could not are now able to buy a fantastic camera. There will be more and more basic questions on this forum as the time goes by. So if you feel you have a chip on your shoulder, which again very few have, don't participate in the thread and let the people who want to help guide others.

Onto the film look. I am personally not obsessed with the "film" look. My take on that might be controversial but we now have cameras that are so unbelievable it is unreal. We have the tools to create the new film look for the next generation. Why looking backwards when the opportunity to plow new ground is in front of us. So I am not looking to reproduce the film look. I bought a Raven to be better at shooting, to find my own look. I also bought the Raven because I know if it does not look good it won't be the camera's fault. I will have shortly the tool to go beyond what I imagine I could do. I also will rely heavily on the knowledge and generosity of the forum to get my there but I am in charge.

Oh yea, there are no stupid questions only different levels of knowledge.

 

[Omar Saad]

A number of us here on this forum work in Hollywood and we have done nothing BUT give away "secrets" for the past decade!

I can definitely vouch for this. I have been reading what Mr. Mullen, and so many other pros, have been graciously sharing on here since 2006. It's a phenomenal resource, but what you get out of it directly correlates to the time investment you put into searching and reading.

 

[Sabovic Adis]

"I bought the same canvas and oil paints as Picasso used , but all the art I make looks like beginner crap.
When I go to museums, his work looks SO much better, why is that?"

You forgot to sign it with "Picasso".

 

[David Mullen ASC]

After 17 pages and 162 posts on the subject, the notion that it must be a Hollywood secret as to how to get a cinematic look on a digital camera just means that someone doesn't like the answers given so far.

 

[Nick Morrison]

After 17 pages and 162 posts on the subject, the notion that it must be a Hollywood secret as to how to get a cinematic look on a digital camera just means that someone doesn't like the answers given so far.

Add over 30-40 years of issues of American Cinematographer, and its clear there's been a wealth of trade info available...for DECADES.

Filmmaking is a collaborative business, and the generous spirit of both you David, and the hundreds of your colleagues in the ASC (and in pages of American Cinematographer)...has been a boon for us all.

Thanks so much.

 

[Martin Stevens]

Plus... CINEFEX magazine has been spilling the technical beans since 1980.

 

[Matt Hoover]

And unfortunately, nearly every one of the P.O.C. stories stinks. Technically great, but hard to watch nevertheless.

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.

 

[Christopher Mills]

I think a great starting point is Joseph Mascelli's 5 C's
camera angles, continuity, cutting, closeups and composition.

And, please never overlook planning your production and the contents of each shot.

 

[Sabovic Adis]

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."

So, if You have talent and skills You can't achieve film look, only Hollywood look? Or only Hollywood's look got talent and skills?

Is Red Weapon a camcorder?

 

[Nick Morrison]

Plus... CINEFEX magazine has been spilling the technical beans since 1980.

Awesome - hadn't heard of it. Adding it to the list!!

best

So, if You have talent and skills You can't achieve film look, only Hollywood look? Or only Hollywood's look got talent and skills?

Is Red Weapon a camcorder?

I think his point is simply that 60i/camcorder looks different than 23.98.