my film look for my first independently produced film which I'm also directing

[Andrew Wilding]

There are no magic answer or quick fixes. There is no "Film look". There is a "professional look" and an "unprofessional look." There are stunning films and atrocious looking films. Both shot on film. On the same stocks with the same lenses. It comes down to technical ability and taste. This is not dependent on the type of lights, type of camera, type of lenses, or any criteria other than the person tasked with creating images with these tools. He or she must know the strengths and limitations of various lights, lenses, formats, etc, must have the taste and talent to conceive appropriate images, and finally, must have the technical ability and know how to make these images a reality, no matter what tools he is given. Within reason, of course.

No one wants to hear that the reason their stuff doesn't look professional is down to there own lack of knowledge or ability. Its nice to imagine that "x" camera or "x" lenses will suddenly make there work on par with the masters. The responsibility is, unfortunately, on you, the artist. Lights, Lenses, Cameras etc are tools. They are brushes. Caravaggio, Vermeer, Rothko are not great artists because they have the best brushes. They have the most talent, technical ability, and above all taste.

Of course, one wants to use the greatest tools at ones disposal. Of course, given the choice (and its appropriateness for the project), I want a stock with lots of dynamic range, low grain, and good color fidelity. Or a comparable digital camera. But if the budget says you need to use 16mm or a lower end digital camera, you need to know how to produce outstanding results within the limitations of the format. Maybe that means lighting within a very small amount of dynamic range. This calls for very precise lighting and metering to get a good, dramatic image that squeezes every bit of range from the format. Or, perhaps it means embracing the limitations and letting highlights blow or exposing for the highlights and letting the shadows go black. Its all a matter of expertise and taste.

 

[Erik Franzén]

Seriously, the 'film-look' is a big damn thief that needs to get the hell out of your head -- it is robbing you of your creativity and good ideas...and planting atrociously bad ones instead!

This imaginary 'film-look' that so many non-working proffesionals (disclaimer: I am not working...nor proffessional!:willy_nilly seem to be searching for is really non-existant. I mean, seriously, have you thought what the film look really is all about? It is basically the averaging of every major movie made in recent memory that is then condensed into the most basic elements as experienced by you as a viewer and then, finally, portrayed as the 'ideal' to look towards. All this is then portrayed as the look of film because, you know, every major movie is shot on film! Oh, the irony in all that.

Embrace the limitations and be free! Sometimes a limitation is a killer for your movie. Fine. Find something else that works for you (and I assure you, there is) or reconsider the monetary requirements of that particular script -- maybe you are chewing more than you can swallow? I know I do.

In the end, from my perspective, you should focus on what you can and what you want to achieve in a particular scenario instead of chasing down equipment that achieves the film look. Shallow depth of field, shaky cam and etcetra -- that is the 'film' look. Or no! Wait. That is the new 'hollywood look'! I meant to say that smooth panning, incredible expensive crane jobs and smooth highlights is the 'film-look'!

Don't listen to me. I am just a poor student trying to get his passion into the making! But listen to everyone else here, they know what they are talking about. And, more importantly, find some zen in the knowledge that not every movie needs this 'film-look' of yours -- it just needs to appeal to the eyes of the audience, aka. no vomit-inducing jello-hell footage!

P.S. I also agree with "experienced crew is more important than equipment" - that is 110% true! You'd be amazed the difference it can make putting the same cam with two crews with difference experience levels - the results are stagggering! :eek6:

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Bribe, schmoose, carry coffee, do anything to be 3rd AC for a DP you really like the look of, then the next, and one more - while simultainously shoot your own stuff with whatever equipment you have.

That way you'll learn the two best ways:

1. Seeing what others do
2. Doing yourself

Both are equaly important.

There's no other way than a mix of these....
Equipment is important, but you don't need it if you don't know how to use it.
I know that is a circular argument, but it is meant like: Try to make the best out of whatever you have access to instead of making nothing/the worst out of what you don't have.

It's more fun that way, too...

And fun = good if you want to do this for a couple of years....

(.... or: Film whatever and add Magic Bullett, but I am afraid you won't learn much that way... LOL )

 

[George Butterfield]

Lighting and colour grading have nothing to do with the "film look" you are talking about.
To realize the "film look" you must shoot onto a receptor ... film or chip, which has the dimensions of 35mm film .. you must use lenses that cover this format, and you should shoot at 24 fps. This will give you 100% "film look".

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Lighting and colour grading have nothing to do with the "film look" you are talking about.
To realize the "film look" you must shoot onto a receptor ... film or chip, which has the dimensions of 35mm film .. you must use lenses that cover this format, and you should shoot at 24 fps. This will give you 100% "film look".

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

To me a film looks like a film if it is told like a film.
A S35mm sensor is a much overrated parameter for that IMHO, even though I have one... -

Is a FF35mm more "filmlook" than some old S16 stock and an old Angie?

I think it's silly to say filmlook = specific equipment.


(And I am so tired that I am rapidly becomming Grumpy Old Man...)

 

[Jeff Coatney]

1. on a percentage basis how much importance are the relationships between the lenses, camera's, lighting equitment and colour grading for getting a pro movie look.
for example is 10% down to lighting 20% lenses 10% colour grading 60% camera used. or is it something like 23% camera 70% lenses, 2% colour grading, 5% camera.
well that's the type of answer I'm looking for.

2. what are the best (and possibly cheapest) combination of camera and lenses to give the best pro look for example I know 28 days later was shot with a really cheap camera and expensive lenses ( I think they were expenss). so can anyone give me a good combination of camra and lenses hat could give me a pro look

3.What are the colour grading programmes that most american film studio's use - when and if - there in the process of using them.

1. I don't think you can quantify these elements in this way because they are subjective. To achieve what you want, all must be equally weighted. Your desire is to have your film appear as a technical and aesthetic equal to any other film in the marketplace- at least in the minds of the audience.

This requires that your film have the components you mention. In this way, all the components are important and no one component has a greater numerical or percentage value than another-- because taking even one of them away affects the perception of all the others. In short: taking just one factor away could result in overall failure in the perception you want to achieve, thus the value of one component is disproportionately weighted when viewed separately from the others combined. They are all required, and at a professional competency level.

2. The best, yet cheapest combination, is to use a Red One with either Red Pro Prime lenses or a Red Pro zoom. Feature films are almost universally shot using the 35mm format, so this aesthetic is what your audience expects to see in terms of quality, resolution and depth of field. The only camera system that can give you all of the components for a professional, unbiased feature film "look" affordably is the Red One with PL mount cinema lenses. However, you must edit and finish with native r3d's to get the most bang for your buck.

3. As for grading, very professional level results can be achieved using Final Cut Studio's Color suite.

 

[Scott Crawley]

But to be honest I've gone out of my way to capture quality images based on my talent and compositional skills, and while I agree that's important - I was still using a really cheap consumer dv camera that really did not help me.

If you staged your shots cinematically; correct angle, appropriate camera motion, good composition and lighting etc., then your shots will look cinematic regardless of your equipment.

Sure grain, frame rates and sharpness will effect the overall appearance, but if the other elements of cinema are present, your film can still look cinematic... Even on consumer mini DV.

You've heard the expression, "We have good, fast and cheap... You may pick any two."? Well in my experience you can run a similar equation on gear:
gear + skill= outcome. So if you want your outcome to equal 10, but your gear is only 3... Then you have to bring more skill to the table. It really is that simple, and I think that is what Jeff is also saying. If you are not getting the 10 you want, it might be wise to focus more on the skills.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

But of course, if you have a set of S4's, a MB 20, an FF4, lights and diffusion, filters, grip and a crew + talent all around - it's fun in a different way.

But I just don't go with the "filmlook" paradigm...

 

[Richard Foster]

In the end you need to decide what your look is. Trying to define something subjective objectively is limiting. For example many feel that shallow depth of field (T 2.8 or so ) is part of the film look. But then look at Greg Toland's superb deep focus look in "Citizen Kane." And many feel that soft light is the look, but then look at the great use of hard light in "Film Noir."

As Gunleik said work for the best and observe and try your own ideas at the same time. It takes both. It's a journey and there are no shortcuts.

 

[s. swift]

thank you for all the answers. some of you have given me specific answers which is great; like useing red pro primes with red one. and leica lenses are one of the top 3 etc. i've seen leica consumer digital the saturation and colour is execptional.

keep it coming. by the way about film look being a thief in my head please lets be real - your talking thrash. sure the differnces between films in the 70's like rocky 2, chinatown etc. look nothing like twilight 1 or city of god in the same way that those films look hugely different to films like raise the red lantern and being john malkovich - BUT - they all (and this inlcludes EVERY film released or shown on t.v.) have clearly a professional cinematic look that's clearly noticeable.

please keep helping, and I'll keep sshowering you with praise in return

 

[s. swift]

by the way that answer: shoot with chip/sensor that has dimensions of 35 mm will 100% give me the film look,

i think there's truth there would others agree.

p.s. don't shoot down other peoples ideas because some of u pensioners are frightened that they my be right. like everything has to be extremely complex when in essence it could be simpler.

I'm looking for direct answers to the question I asked thankfully after the first 2-3 replies the answers vastly improved - so thanks and keep it coming.

much adue and obliged.

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

composition and lighting skills are all you need

gear is gear..

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

your talking thrash. sure the differnces between films in the 70's like rocky 2, chinatown etc. look nothing like twilight 1 or city of god in the same way that those films look hugely different to films like raise the red lantern and being john malkovich - BUT - they all (and this inlcludes EVERY film released or shown on t.v.) have clearly a professional cinematic look that's clearly noticeable.

70s films dont look like 2000's somethings films because the stock has graduated to many different levels..

before your fastest stock was 100 asa.. Now look at it..

plus the color rendition, resolution, dynamic range, and grain levels have improved dramatically.

if you want the "film look" go shoot on film.. panavision offers many student programs as does kodak.. youll quickly learn that if you dont light the scene properly or shoot it right, that "Film look" wont save you.

digital may be a little harder to light because of dynamic range restrictions, but that is quickly changing

 

[Andrew Wilding]

Pensioners?


What a little brat you are. People are trying to help, and are giving you honest answers and attempting to educate you. Sorry if these answers aren't the ones you were looking for - but they are the correct ones.

Ok, you know what?

Shoot on Anamorphic 35, with Master Primes and only use Arri lights.

Thats it, thats the secret. I expect you will be thanking me when its time to collect your academy awards.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

LOL

I really didn't feel THAT old...

But I stand by what I say: Get out and work on your own and other projects and see what they do with all that lovely kit.

The kit inself is not generating much of a filmlook.

But now I am off!

 

[Stephen Strangways]

Also I want to achieve a professional look with the minimum fuss as possible... And also a camera that I can use without needing any lighting equitment.

There is no camera or lens in the world that can magically overcome poor lighting and deliver a professional look all by itself.

Here's a behind-the-scenes shot from The Nothing Men showing what goes into lighting a "simple" outdoor shot to achieve a professional look:
http://www.red.com/skin/img/nothing/big_scene4.jpg

That might be an extreme example, but the point is this: you'll be much farther ahead with a serviceable camera and adequate lenses combined with a small lighting/grip kit and some skill in setting it up, than you would be by expecting a RED with Leica lenses to miraculously give an un-lit shot a professional look.

 

[Bryce O]

The answer is really simple these days... Get a 5D/7D and start making some shorts. If you cannot achieve the "film look" with one of these cameras, quit. If you CAN achieve the film look with a DSLR... then start saving up for a Red or rent one if your project is bound for the big screen. While the DSLRs may not give you film "quality" (which is still subjective), they most certainly can give you the high-budget cinematic "look" if used in the right hands.

 

[Richard Foster]

Also an obvious resource - American Cinamatographer magazine. Stephen's jpg brought that to mind. Articles and lighting set-up diagrams and commentary from the best - every month. And you can go see in the theater what you've read about.

 

[Craig Parkes]

by the way that answer: shoot with chip/sensor that has dimensions of 35 mm will 100% give me the film look,

i think there's truth there would others agree.

p.s. don't shoot down other peoples ideas because some of u pensioners are frightened that they my be right. like everything has to be extremely complex when in essence it could be simpler.

I'm looking for direct answers to the question I asked thankfully after the first 2-3 replies the answers vastly improved - so thanks and keep it coming.

much adue and obliged.

I was happy enough giving you help in my first reply, after this post I now regret wasting my time.

Learn some manners and grow up, then worry about what it takes to shoot a film.

 

[Brian Petrie]

by the way that answer: shoot with chip/sensor that has dimensions of 35 mm will 100% give me the film look,

i think there's truth there would others agree.

p.s. don't shoot down other peoples ideas because some of u pensioners are frightened that they my be right. like everything has to be extremely complex when in essence it could be simpler.

I'm looking for direct answers to the question I asked thankfully after the first 2-3 replies the answers vastly improved - so thanks and keep it coming.

much adue and obliged.

As many have stated it is nearly impossible to give a quick direct answer. There are way too many variables to take into account. No simple equation will work for everything. I find it rude to make a remark like that about people trying to share their knowledge and help you out. While sensor size can help to make a movie look more "filmic", it is not an end all be all, just take a look at the past academy award winners for cinematography .

My advice would be to listen to people here, read alot and get experience. The only short direct answer would be get a 50 million dollar budget and just buy the best talent/gear/production team, even then it isn't gauranteed. Otherwise, as others have stated, use some ingenuity, get some good talent and surround yourself with experienced people all while learning as much as you can.