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

[Sabovic Adis]

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

best



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

I know, Nick, I was pulling his leg. Huhuh...no HF .:biggrin:

As for film look, there is no film - there are films. Therefore there can't be film look, only film looks.
Just pick one of the existing looks, or make yourself one of your own!

 

[Sabovic Adis]

You misunderstand what I wrote. If you have talent and skills your movie can definitely have the Hollywood look, with great art direction, lighting, costumes, makeup, sound, foley, etc. But none of those talents and skills will give your movie the film look if you're not shooting on the proper equipment. Conversely, shooting with the right equipment at the correct settings will easily give anyone the film look, but without talent and skill it will never achieve the Hollywood look.


Good question. I guess it depends on the definition of the word Camcorder. If it's any camera that can also record the video it sees, then, yes, RED Weapon is a camcorder. But I used the term Camcorder to imply consumer cameras that record in 60i which instantly delivers the video look and not the film look. RED Weapon records in framerates specific to cinema, so as long as the Weapon is set to shoot 24p at 180 degrees then it definitely delivers the film look.

Of course I misunderstand. :biggrin:

If, for example, "Talent and skills = Hollywood look", then "Talent and skills ≠ Pinewood look", right?
Then again, all that: art direction, lighting, costumes, makeup, sound, foley are means to satisfy the need emerged from initial screenplay or "storytelling". It's consequence, not cause.
I mean, the last thing You think about when thinking about making a movie is the "film look", or "Hollywood look". You can post pictures, to demonstrate this or that "look", an yes, a picture is worth a thousand words, but exactly that is the problem - You never know what the picture actually said. :lol:

Maybe You didn't see my previous post...

A camcorder? Camera-recorder, right?

 

[Christoffer Glans]

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

Except it isn't a secret, just working experience and knowledge

Problem today is that people want quick fixes for everything. Like, "Oscar worthy cinematography for dummies". There are too many wannabes who makes up conspiracies when they don't have the knowledge or experience. This disrespect against professionals experience and knowledge is tiresome. If someone don't understand how something is the way it is, they really need to cut the crap and just work, work, work. If they don't know something, they need to learn how to do it, not let anyone tell them a "secret". No one is going to give them the holy grail of a quick fix, because it doesn't exist.

 

[M.Halsell]

It took many moons to learn this, but some personality types are not instructable. They steal all your time and goods intention and simply leaving you exhausted. The analogy is - miss the basics in Algebra I, you struggle the rest of the way with the more advanced stuff.

 

[Nick Morrison]

The analogy is - miss the basics in Algebra I, you struggle the rest of the way with the more advanced stuff.

That's a great way to put. Never thought of it that way! Thanks.

 

[Aaron michaels]

Ok Hollywood workers answer this question. everyone talks about a digital film look right and you say this and they say that but the Hobbit was shot on a RED EPIC -X and they never achieved a film look for that film from what I heard and saw on the making of. lights costumes makeup etc. couldn't stop the video look of that film. After hearing how great the epic was and from a consumers idea of a camera that was suppose to be greater than a red one MX or the next best thing from all of the hype our hopes tanked after that film. George Lucas use Sony digital cameras to shoot one of the star wars films and it didn't look like video and by no means am I stating that the Epic is not a great camera because i own one. I'm just trying to find out what you thing happen and why the so called film look tanked?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

"The Hobbit" was shot at 48 fps, which is closer to the look of interlaced-scan video (50i or 60i) due to the higher motion sampling rate.

Besides, if Hollywood has a secret "film look" switch, then why didn't they use it on "The Hobbit"?

 

[Aaron michaels]

Well that will explain the look...Everyone looks at a Hollywood film and may say that was shot on the same camera i have but mine looks nothing like the Hollywood film and I have the same settings in my camera but I know they have the cash to do any and everything in post. as for me I have my own looks so i don't sweat the so called Hollywood look.

 

[Ulf Krentz]

Well that will explain the look...Everyone looks at a Hollywood film and may say that was shot on the same camera i have but mine looks nothing like the Hollywood film and I have the same settings in my camera but I know they have the cash to do any and everything in post. as for me I have my own looks so i don't sweat the so called Hollywood look.

The thing is, they don´t do it in post Most of the "look" is done in camera and it does not even matter that much which camera.

 

[Joel Arvidsson]

I love that they shot the hobbit in 48fps. Then you can do two versions... But they could also do a third version wich would be my wish for all movies going forward. For slow moving scenes I the look of 24/25p, but I really dislike action sequences in 24p. Its just pure bullock...I mean the motionblur is killing all the action to the point I wish the action stops soon. There for (my preference) the best of thing to would be to play slow clips in 24p and then faster clips in 48 or even 60fps. Havent disney done a adaptiv test with this?

But I guess we are talking mostly about the "look" and not the motion of the images in this thread. And in that case I think Its like Ulf says that the look is done mostly in camera.

 

[Sabovic Adis]

Does film look? I know I do, because look is in the eye of the beholder. :biggrin:

 

[Marc Wielage]

The thing is, they don´t do it in post Most of the "look" is done in camera and it does not even matter that much which camera.

I would argue more of the film look happens in front of the camera, because of the work of the art department choosing the right colors and materials for the set, the set decorator finding the right props, the costume designer and makeup people coordinating to make sure the actors look right, and most importantly, the cinematographer lighting the scene and choosing the right lens and the right camera composition to tell the story. The basic look has to be there right on set even before it hits the camera.

There's an old adage that says you basically have to spend at least 10,000 hours to become an expert at something. I think this is particularly true of cinematography, and it could well take more like 20,000 hours or even 30,000 hours to become really good at it. One guy told me in a music video session in the 1980s about how they happened to hit a point at dusk where the sunlight went behind the trees and he caught a beautiful moment that made it in the final film, where the actors looked particularly dramatic and unusual. I told him, "wow, you really lucked out on that shot," and he laughed and said, "I find the more years I shoot, the more lucky breaks like this I get." In his case, it was an unplanned shot but he saw it and immediately rolled without telling the director, and he made a great call. That one shot made the video.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Conrad Hall once said that as he got older, it wasn't that he took fewer risks, but that it was harder to find a risk to take because he had done so much -- what would have been a risk to a younger cinematographer was something he had already tried.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Conrad Hall once said that as he got older, it wasn't that he took fewer risks, but that it was harder to find a risk to take because he had done so much -- what would have been a risk to a younger cinematographer was something he had already tried.

Love this.

 

[James Falco]

I would argue more of the film look happens in front of the camera, because of the work of the art department choosing the right colors and materials for the set, the set decorator finding the right props, the costume designer and makeup people coordinating to make sure the actors look right, and most importantly, the cinematographer lighting the scene and choosing the right lens and the right camera composition to tell the story. The basic look has to be there right on set even before it hits the camera.

That argument is only partially relevant and does not apply in a lot of situations. Like a landscape shot of a mountain!
There is nature cinematographers that only work with existing light, no actors, no art department, no costume. There works looks stunningly cinematic and impressive.

Which brings me back to my original argument, and that is talent.
You can learn all the technical aspects of an art form, have the best gear there is, have all the experience in the world, without talent you are just lip synching great songs of others.

 

[todd k]

Camera...work . Huh.

 

[Ulf Krentz]

I would argue more of the film look happens in front of the camera, snip

Marc, James this is what I wanted to express. It all boils down to what you actually capture. Post can be a great help but won't magically make a bad image look exceptional. Anyway, it has been stated before, you probably won´t ask a star chef which pan he´s using to prepare his dishes

 

[Sabovic Adis]

What's a star chef? :lol:

 

[Aaron michaels]

I argue the whole in camera jazz also. I shoot great shots but when I start grading the look can make your movie beautiful. The in camera looks deal with filters and lenses which can be a lot of work but if the shot is worth it the out come may be greater.I would still grade after the perfect shot to see if it will match the rest of the footage or the feel of my movie.

 

[Christopher Mills]

Camera...work . Huh.

Yeah, this. I work a lot on studio/network scripted projects, and when I see who will be operating the camera, I have some sense of the how many good choices the editorial department will have.
Across the years, I have seen some truly excellent operators execute and improve on the ideas of the director and DP. Sometimes you'll see two monitors up, and while both operators are following directions to the satisfaction of their superiors, you'll notice that one of them just has a magic sense of the fine points of finding the frame and holding it through the take, and suggesting a great way to tell the story in their work.

To folks who wish their wides looked more filmic, don't forget that grip dept's work molding the light, modifying it and cutting, or bouncing in some more is another part of the story. It's absolutely no accident that you divide up the tasks of film making and have specialists and special tools for each part.

Your movie probably falls short because you don't know what you don't know.

If not, it is because your reach exceeded your grasp.

Don't despair, though, try to learn what you can do with any tool set and support staff.

Play small ball, if you need to, because a win is a win.