Most cinematic images

[Rohan B]

Hi guys,
I am starting this another thread to discuss with all the reduser as how according to u guys is the best way to achieve the most cinematic and high quality images from a red one mx or epic cameras both during shooting and during post. As i am verry soon starting an indian movie on two red one mx cameras,i would love to hear from all u redusers about ur experiences and thoughts on this matter,even the most minimum amount of info would be infinitely useful to me. Waiting desperately for ur replies guys................

 

[Martin Weiss]

I'd start off by reading David Mullen's fabulous thread and then by asking slightly more specific questions.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

"High quality" and "cinematic" mean nothing. What kind of quality are you aiming for? Raw? Glossy? Violent? Romantic?

That said, my simple trick for achieving Cinematic Quality was to follow these simple steps I guarantee it will work - it's like an "Auto-Cinematic Button"!:

1 - Go to a good film school
2 - Apprentice for years on sets, sometimes for no pay.
3 - Read every issue of American Cinematographer - I am now back to 1979 or so.
4 - Read every book about cinematography sold anywhere at any price
5 - Go to NAB every year, to keep up with new tools
6 - Go to any workshop that seems worth it, and buy any DVDs that might have even a shred of useful info.
7 - When hired as a cinematographer or director, work like a dog and learn from any mistakes.

You see? All you have to do is follow these seven steps, and you can always enjoy images of cinematic quality - it's a simple recipe!

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

You have to shoot with the twenty four "Ps", and definitely use one of those DoFs because they sound awesome (I think it means Directors of Fotography). Then you crank up the saturation at least a lot --or more-- and finish by maxing out sharpening, a couple of times on top of each other (it makes everything even more HD, and awesome).

But jokes aside I think Martin's and Neal's (now gone "hire a good DP") posts put together are a great start.

Rob's post is great as well, though perhaps a bit more for aspiring DPs themselves. Though a Director that can "speak DP" will have a much easier time communicating his vision, comprehending the DP's vision, understanding limitations, and have a better over all understanding of how visual style can be employed to accentuate the story... and one could easily argue they would also have the capability to work a little faster.

 

[Keith Putnam]

Snarkiness aside, it seems like what you're asking is how to make the footage you shoot look "like a movie" as opposed to "like amateurish crap". This is a fair question, though nearly impossible to answer within the limitations of a forum on the internet.
My best advice would be have a great script and then to pay extremely close attention to and stay very mindful of, at all times:

the lighting
the composition
the blocking of and coverage within your scenes
the performances
the production design (sets, colors, props, locations)
the costumes
the makeup and hair
etc.

Every single thing in your frame, in other words. Make active choices which serve a purpose.

Hire people who know what they're doing. In your case, shooting with the RED system, hire a DP and a DIT (and, to an extent, ACs) who know the camera and how to expose the chip properly.

Try and fail and learn and try again.

 

[Joe G.]

Yeah, what they said.

If you have money to shoot Red MX, yet you have no idea what you're doing... um... hire a DP.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Please don't take any jokes the wrong way. It is just that since this is literally an art form, it is hard to answer what you are asking without the fear someone else will interpret our replies as dogmatic or at least inconclusive. But, perhaps, what makes movies appear "cinematic" is talent --and its development-- often together with an exhaustive study of the craft. And since filmmaking is a team sport, this has to be done by all members of the cast and crew. From concept through marketing, and every job in between, it has to be like a song with unity, sections, chords, notes... all with the same purpose, which hopefully is to tell a story that will entertain and/or say "something interesting" (which might be "saying stuff while trying your hardest not to interject yourself into the point"). 0.00002

 

[Mark Collins]

Awesome lighting and a 2.35 aspect ratio will give you that "Cinematic" feel....but they're both no substitute for practical experience, or good shooting.

 

[Rohan B]

What about the settings like 23.976 progressive frames per second and 180 degree shutter which in case of 24 frames is 1/48 sec,should i always stick to the 180 degree shutter even when i am shooting slow motion to get a cinematic motion like in case of 60 fps the shutter will be 1/120 sec. I just want my movie to look like a movie,have a basic cinematic look if not a filmic look.....

 

[Rohan B]

i believe that the cinematic look and the filmic look are two different things,but we mix the two,we confuse the filmic look for the only cinematic look because cinema has never had any other format other than film,i think a digital format which is technically as superior as 35mm in terms of dynamic range,latitude,sensitivity and colour reproduction has a s35mm cmos sensor thus giving me the same depth of field,filed of view and angle of view and is progressive and shot at 23.976 frames per second with a 180 degree shutter,it will give me exactly the same characteristics as 35mm film,it may not be filmic because the two are after all a little different just like the kodak looks a little different from fuji, but it will give me a cinematic look. Thats what i think pls tell me whether i am right or wrong...............

 

[Stronz Vanderploeg]

Most people can that there is a difference between cinematic and non-cinematic, they just don't know what the reason is. Just compare and contrast images you find cinematic and non-cinematic. Then try and deduce the reason for the difference.

I'd wager 99% of the general population could not tell the difference between 24fps and 30fps. Most "average" people I know can't even tell the difference on the new 120hz tv's.

So I think sometimes we get caught up in the technical aspects and lose focus of what really contributes to that cinematic feel.

Definitely lighting, you absolutely need good lighting, which also means knowing how to control shadows. And proper color correction. And I've actually found that good, dynamic sound also contributes to making the image feel more cinematic as well.

Also something that doesn't get discussed a lot is what I call color contrast. Basically how the colors in the image play with one another. If everything is just tinted orange, it's probably not going to feel very cinematic.

What everyone has said here is completely true. There is no one magic "cinema" button. Look at still images from movies, tv, student films, music videos, talk shows, infomercials, basically everything and then compare the differences to see what's giving certain images a "cinematic" feel. And then just try and imitate those characteristics.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

The Blue Glass

The Blue Glass

Go to a plastics shop and purchase a 3x3" square of very dark blue clear plastic and have them drill a hole through one corner and put a cord through that hold and wear it around your neck. Close your left eye, and hold the "blue glass" in front of your right eye for no more than 5 seconds, during which you can see something like the way the camera sees.

Without the blue glass, you see too much shadow detail with your eyes, and you see the bright areas too little. Your eye adapts so you can only look through it for a few seconds.

The ND viewing filters do not work as well because the color does not show the lighting as well as a monochrome dark blue filter. [Das Blaue Licht]

==

The camera sees what is there. The eye and mind of the untrained do not see what is in front of them or they would not vote for corrupt politicians or make awful movies.

==

Many people think they can make a movie because they have seen "hundreds of movies" so now they can make one also.

You can eat at many hundreds of restaurants but that does not make you the greatest chef in the world.

[The point being that you need to learn: the ingredients, about preparation, about technique, and to then learn the recipes that are successful well received.]

==

You need to MAKE what is in front of the camera the most interesting thing you can, nothing the camera does can replace having something interesting to point it at.

 

[Stefan Antonescu]

Good lighting and sound will give you a "cinematic image".

 

[Rohan B]

Most people can that there is a difference between cinematic and non-cinematic, they just don't know what the reason is. Just compare and contrast images you find cinematic and non-cinematic. Then try and deduce the reason for the difference.

I'd wager 99% of the general population could not tell the difference between 24fps and 30fps. Most "average" people I know can't even tell the difference on the new 120hz tv's.

So I think sometimes we get caught up in the technical aspects and lose focus of what really contributes to that cinematic feel.

Definitely lighting, you absolutely need good lighting, which also means knowing how to control shadows. And proper color correction. And I've actually found that good, dynamic sound also contributes to making the image feel more cinematic as well.

Also something that doesn't get discussed a lot is what I call color contrast. Basically how the colors in the image play with one another. If everything is just tinted orange, it's probably not going to feel very cinematic.

What everyone has said here is completely true. There is no one magic "cinema" button. Look at still images from movies, tv, student films, music videos, talk shows, infomercials, basically everything and then compare the differences to see what's giving certain images a "cinematic" feel. And then just try and imitate those characteristics.

Stronz,i think its the way in which a project is shot that matters,if shot on 24p the motion flow and characteristics will remain like that even if they are converted to 50i or 60i,the biggest example of this is when we watch movies ,feature films on television it still looks like a movie not like a soap opera,the motion flow is similar,there is verry little difference in how it looked in the theater,now there might be some interlacing artifacts but they are negligible and don't even register on a sub-conscious level,on the other hand i have seen projects shot on 60i converted to 24p it still looks the same,beacause thats the way it is shot so the motion stucks with it.
And as far as this 24fps and 30fps is concerned,people might not be able to tell it because they might not have so much technical knowledge but they will feel something is odd on a subconcious level but not be able to explain it thus finaly ignoring it,i mean thay don't care, the picture is moving thats what maters for them ,its movie. Now it also depends on whether it is shot on 30p or 60i both meaning 30fps and also at what shutter angle.

 

[Keith Putnam]

Okay, if, after all of that your question was really just "does 24fps with 1/48th shutter look more 'like a movie' than 30fps with 1/60th shutter?" the answer is YES.
30fps will always look "like video" in a way that non-pros have a hard time describing other than saying that it looks like the news. More frames per second and less motion blur is less abstract and more "real"-feeling than fewer frames and more blur, to a point.
When you get your hands on a camera, just shoot a quick test. Compare 24fps to 30fps and see which you like better. But if you want your footage to look "like a movie", it's 24fps all the way.

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

its 100% about lighting and PRODUCTION DESIGN..

production design is the most underrated and overlooked things in the indie world.

good lighting is KEY as well..

You can make a DVX look amazing with these two thing..

the camera is a tool and really doesnt make anything cinematic.

 

[Stronz Vanderploeg]

Stronz,i think its the way in which a project is shot that matters,if shot on 24p the motion flow and characteristics will remain like that even if they are converted to 50i or 60i,the biggest example of this is when we watch movies ,feature films on television it still looks like a movie not like a soap opera,the motion flow is similar,there is verry little difference in how it looked in the theater,now there might be some interlacing artifacts but they are negligible and don't even register on a sub-conscious level,on the other hand i have seen projects shot on 60i converted to 24p it still looks the same,beacause thats the way it is shot so the motion stucks with it.
And as far as this 24fps and 30fps is concerned,people might not be able to tell it because they might not have so much technical knowledge but they will feel something is odd on a subconcious level but not be able to explain it thus finaly ignoring it,i mean thay don't care, the picture is moving thats what maters for them ,its movie. Now it also depends on whether it is shot on 30p or 60i both meaning 30fps and also at what shutter angle.

If I had to choose, of course I would choose 24p BUT that's one of the last things on a checklist of a cinematic image. My point was that you shouldn't focus on the "technical" details and more on the aesthetics of an image.

What makes something cinematic is what is contained within the frame. A lens, frame rate, resolution, dynamic range, etc all contribute to that "look" but these are some of the most imperceptible aspects to an average viewer.

Listen to Zak, what he says in true. Your production design and lighting are going to help you achieve a cinematic look far more than a frame rate or some other technical detail.

I do understand that those details ARE important but you must first have the basic fundamentals. An un-lit, horribly acted scene where everything is orange, is NOT going to look cinematic just because it was shot at 24p with 1/48th shutter on a RED ONE with Zeiss primes.

 

[Rohan B]

Thanks guys for all ur replies.....i am really enjoying my time and also learning a lot on reduser forums.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

its 100% about lighting and PRODUCTION DESIGN..

production design is the most underrated and overlooked things in the indie world.

good lighting is KEY as well..

You can make a DVX look amazing with these two thing..

the camera is a tool and really doesnt make anything cinematic.

You are 100% correct about production design. Many first timers overlook the color palette in their short films and wonder why it does not look cinematic even with semi porofessional lighting and a camera like red.



Notice how all the colors seem to complement each other really well. The light beige tones really work well with the powder blue and the color palette carries over into Leo's shirt as well.



This shot would not look nearly as good if someone was wearing a yellow sweatshirt. Everyone in the scene is wearing muted colors. You can tell that the costume choices were all designed to work with the color palette of this particular scene.



You can also throw in an out of place color for emphasis. Notice how your eyes are naturally drawn to the apples. They really stand out in this shot made up of muted colors.



This is a great shot. Notice how the clothing choices match with where the characters are placed.



Hm, I wonder what the dominant color in this shot is?



Sometimes, you just need to do something interesting to make it look cinematic. You probably would not find something like this in real life but who cares, it looks stunning.



One of these things is not like the others.



Ah, black and white, you always look cinematic.

Some more examples of strong use of color (or lack there of), composition and lighting.



































Hope this helps.

 

[Johnny Friday]

I'd say you.....we go back to 1966 and ask guys that made movies like this....forget this famous Italian cinematographer, but man every-time i see this i'm blow away....1966!