Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

[ TUTORIAL ] Creating the Film Look (Red Epic RedLOGFILM)

Marc Wielage said:
Talk to me in email and I'll forward my resume: 220 features, 64 American network TV series, about 1000 commercials and music videos spread out over 30 years in Hollywood. Star Wars, Return of the Jedi, Dances with Wolves, Die Hard, Nixon, and Shine a Light would be among the ones easiest to find on home video.

What I say is still true: the "film look" is an ephemeral thing, and it's not just a color correction per se. It's a litany of granular things (literally) that add up to something much greater. A decent correction isn't necessarily a "film look," but I never said it was a bad grade, not at all. But I think before you try to teach people what it is, you might open your mind up to the possibility that it might be a far bigger subject than you may imagine.

Longtime Videography commentator Mark Schubin has written a lot of columns about what the film look really is, and I think he has the best grasp of the subject. I checked his website recently and don't see any of his old 1980s or 1990s columns on the subject, but if I can hunt them down, I'll post the links. SMPTE and the American Cinematographer (particularly 1970s/1980s editor Herb Lightman) did quite a few essays on what the "film look" was all about, though I think much of what they said has faded in light of HD. I think the characteristics of CMOS chips in general get in the way of the film look, since the image feel is so different from actual film. I think a mechanical shutter or a global shutter eliminates a lot of that problem, but until then, we're stuck with rolling shutter problems, and that takes away from the film look as well.

If you had merely said, "here's a demo of how I did this grade," I would have had no problem with it. But film look has a real meaning, philosophically, artistically, and technically, and it's not a button or a knob. I thought I knew a lot about it when I went to work for Kodak back in 2002, but began to realize despite having decades of experience in TV and film then, there was a far greater universe than I knew. It was a good experience for me to understand the vast amount of info about film I didn't know. Nowadays, I'm acutely aware of what I don't know, but that took a lifetime to learn.
Click to expand...

It baffles me that someone with such an impressive and vast amount of experience can still struggle with basic communication. I am literally shocked with your reply! Even the title to my video link has a question mark at the end of "the film look?", and it seems that you STILL haven't watched the damn thing yet. I give up. No, wait, I cant...it wouldn't be fair of me. Marc, PLEASE watch the tutorial or read the blog post before you reply. Maybe then I'll bow in respect to the body of work you have under your belt.
 
Mike Harrington said:
That's a hell of a resume Marc....
Click to expand...
A friend of mine just looked over my shoulder and said, "you're a liar -- you've done far more work than that." Sadly, this is true. I would discount a lot of the work I did from about 1979 to roughly 1989, because the pictures looked so awful then, partly because of the fact that I was still learning (and had only ten years experience), but also because the state of the art of the equipment was miserable analog video. Once it went all digital, it got better. I can stand to look at (for example) all the Get Smart remasters I did around 1989-1990, which actually held up very well on DVD in the late 1990s.

Seriously, I'd love the chance to redo most of the work I did in the first 20 years of my experience as a colorist, because the equipment and workflows got so much better in the late 1990s. In particular, the chance to do the work from original negative on pin-registered scanners... that makes a huge difference compared to the way we used to work.

Matthew Scott said:
It baffles me that someone with such an impressive and vast amount of experience can still struggle with basic communication. I am literally shocked with your reply! Even the title to my video link has a question mark at the end of "the film look?", and it seems that you STILL haven't watched the damn thing yet.
Click to expand...
I don't see a question mark in the topic title. Change it to, "here's a tutorial on how I did this grade," and I would have no problem with it. The Film Look means a specific thing.

Language is important, particularly on the internet, and the use of specific words with real meaning can't be taken lightly. If you tell people you're going to train them on how to create "the film look," you might want to step back a minute and consider if that's really what you want to say. Have you actually shot 35mm negative before and taken it through an answer print? (I'm just asking -- this is not a challenge.) That's unquestionably "the film look," but I've seen an awful lot of film that looked horrible in my years at Technicolor. The great thing about film is, when you shoot it badly, you can often still save it in post; I find this is harder with digital. That's another aspect of "the film look" that I miss today: room for error, particularly in exposure.
 
Marc Wielage said:
A friend of mine just looked over my shoulder and said, "you're a liar -- you've done far more work than that." Sadly, this is true. I would discount a lot of the work I did from about 1979 to roughly 1989, because the pictures looked so awful then, partly because of the fact that I was still learning (and had only ten years experience), but also because the state of the art of the equipment was miserable analog video. Once it went all digital, it got better. I can stand to look at (for example) all the Get Smart remasters I did around 1989-1990, which actually held up very well on DVD in the late 1990s.

Seriously, I'd love the chance to redo most of the work I did in the first 20 years of my experience as a colorist, because the equipment and workflows got so much better in the late 1990s. In particular, the chance to do the work from original negative on pin-registered scanners... that makes a huge difference compared to the way we used to work.


I don't see a question mark in the topic title. Change it to, "here's a tutorial on how I did this grade," and I would have no problem with it. The Film Look means a specific thing.

Language is important, particularly on the internet, and the use of specific words with real meaning can't be taken lightly. If you tell people you're going to train them on how to create "the film look," you might want to step back a minute and consider if that's really what you want to say. Have you actually shot 35mm negative before and taken it through an answer print? (I'm just asking -- this is not a challenge.) That's unquestionably "the film look," but I've seen an awful lot of film that looked horrible in my years at Technicolor. The great thing about film is, when you shoot it badly, you can often still save it in post; I find this is harder with digital. That's another aspect of "the film look" that I miss today: room for error, particularly in exposure.
Click to expand...

Okay, now I really give up.
 
Having a term like "the film look" hinders conversation on what you're trying to teach because it requires definition. Does it make it easier if we decide on saying you're trying to make your footage look like film? This allows us to speak about film, the medium, as opposed to that "elusive film look." Sure, there's a lot that goes into making a satisfying image like the shot you've provided, as you mention in your video, such as lighting, art, frame composition, adding haze, etc... But to try and make a digital image was captured on an analog format, I think we're mostly talking about look adjustments including but not limited to: frame rate, grain, curve response, highlights, skin tone rendition, resolution, color...

And even still, everyone has their own definition. I like your lighting, the haze was a smart choice. And of course, costuming, art, and your frame composition works in your favor. It's tough to see details like grain on streaming videos, but you're image looks too heavily graded to my eye to pass as film. Specifically, I'm looking at what I perceive as the color contrast between the skin tones and the rest of the image. The red drops out of the mids and shadows so much to bring in that blue-shadow look (which is a fast easy grade that usually looks like a high budget Hollywood film) that it aligns itself with so many overdone pre-set looks you find in color grading apps. Pulling from the history of film (though I know many film productions do full grades) I think part of looking like the film medium is having a grade or look that is minimal in complexity, something similarly achievable through a chemical grade. Also, I noticed that you heavily boosted the 1.2K backlight to the point that it looks more like a digital highlight, than a filmic roll off response.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, especially on how to simulate an analog look on digital sensors, and I honestly don't know if it's even possible with every (or any) camera. I hope you can respect me voicing my opinions on this open discussion forum, just as you're using it to voice yours, and Marc was voicing his, without publicly dismissing us just because we have different views on a topic that is based on subjectivity.
 
I think it's understood that there are two definitions of 'the film look'. One is an accurate term of color science and digital image processing, the other a broad term that means 'an image that looks like a major motion picture' or if you want to be facetious, 'like a Michael Bay movie'. Though I would guess that in color science there is not one term but a vocabulary to articulate what can be taken together to mean 'the film look'.

I think Marc's critique is important so that someone inexperienced doesn't take it at face value (even considering Mat's qualifications about the complexity of the topic) as an authoritative demonstration of The Film Look (TM). Perhaps Mat can append some links to reference texts in his description if people want to learn more.
 
Very good points by Jordan and Brett above. They get what I was trying to say.

Chris Elkerton said:
Congratulations on having such a fantastic career. What's even more impressive is it hasn't gone to your head in anyway.
Click to expand...
Mr. Scott asked me who I was and what I've done, and I answered his question. I agree with him: it's good to know who you're having a discussion with on the net, especially when you have no idea what the credentials are of the guy on the other side.

It does amuse me on one level and concern me on another that a lot of people throw around terms that they don't really understand. There are aspects of working with film that I miss, but also a lot that I don't miss. Not all of "the film look" was a good thing, particularly film damage, developer problems, applicator stains, fogging, mistimes, generation loss, splicing problems, and so on. But then, we have file corruption, compression artifacts, backup issues, and a whole range of different problems with digital.

I see similar arguments with sound people who want digital recordings to have "an analog feel." You'd be amazed how similar picture and sound issues are, particularly in how we've replaced one set of problems with another. All things considered, I think there's pros and cons on down the line. The best artists have a good grasp on both and know the limits.
 
Marc, let me just start by saying this, my comment wasn't meant as an attack on you. I'm sure your a really nice guy and your credentials obviously speak for themselves. I just felt that your comments in the context of this tutorial thread were a bit out of line. Perhaps this tutorial isn't aimed at you. I think it is perhaps aimed at those of us that grew up with digital and have always had this term "film look" banded around. Having advancements like, shooting progressive, 24fps, large sensors and HDR are all things that we have longed for to give us that "film look". It doesn't mean we think it replicates film. I think for "film look" also read "motion picture look".
I think this debate is an interesting one as this term certainly means something different things to different people. However I just don't think that this thread is the best place to have it. I think Matt puts himself out there, creating tutorials to help people and that should be commended.
 
Jordan Raabe said:
Having a term like "the film look" hinders conversation on what you're trying to teach because it requires definition. Does it make it easier if we decide on saying you're trying to make your footage look like film? This allows us to speak about film, the medium, as opposed to that "elusive film look." Sure, there's a lot that goes into making a satisfying image like the shot you've provided, as you mention in your video, such as lighting, art, frame composition, adding haze, etc... But to try and make a digital image was captured on an analog format, I think we're mostly talking about look adjustments including but not limited to: frame rate, grain, curve response, highlights, skin tone rendition, resolution, color...

And even still, everyone has their own definition. I like your lighting, the haze was a smart choice. And of course, costuming, art, and your frame composition works in your favor. It's tough to see details like grain on streaming videos, but you're image looks too heavily graded to my eye to pass as film. Specifically, I'm looking at what I perceive as the color contrast between the skin tones and the rest of the image. The red drops out of the mids and shadows so much to bring in that blue-shadow look (which is a fast easy grade that usually looks like a high budget Hollywood film) that it aligns itself with so many overdone pre-set looks you find in color grading apps. Pulling from the history of film (though I know many film productions do full grades) I think part of looking like the film medium is having a grade or look that is minimal in complexity, something similarly achievable through a chemical grade. Also, I noticed that you heavily boosted the 1.2K backlight to the point that it looks more like a digital highlight, than a filmic roll off response.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, especially on how to simulate an analog look on digital sensors, and I honestly don't know if it's even possible with every (or any) camera. I hope you can respect me voicing my opinions on this open discussion forum, just as you're using it to voice yours, and Marc was voicing his, without publicly dismissing us just because we have different views on a topic that is based on subjectivity.
Click to expand...
Hey Jordan, thanks for the reply :) I agree with your points about my grade, totally! I just love that we/you/anyone with cheap PC has the power the change those things to their liking, and that is why I've created these tutorials...to give people that power. I'm not here to define anything, or tell people how it is. And if can't title my post with the words "film look" in it, without getting people like Marc's knickers in a knot (I'm deliberately being rude and obnoxious now) then, like I said earlier, I give up.

I love true discussion and open communication. I thrive on criticism and am always looking to improve. Sometimes it's much more difficult to engage in that sort of environment than I think it should be..... Such is the nature of forums.

Thanks again for your reply, I'm not in anyway having a stab at you.
 
Brett Harrison said:
I think it's understood that there are two definitions of 'the film look'. One is an accurate term of color science and digital image processing, the other a broad term that means 'an image that looks like a major motion picture' or if you want to be facetious, 'like a Michael Bay movie'. Though I would guess that in color science there is not one term but a vocabulary to articulate what can be taken together to mean 'the film look'.

I think Marc's critique is important so that someone inexperienced doesn't take it at face value (even considering Mat's qualifications about the complexity of the topic) as an authoritative demonstration of The Film Look (TM). Perhaps Mat can append some links to reference texts in his description if people want to learn more.
Click to expand...

Brett, I'm not trying to be an authority on such a topic, and if people are making assumptions about the tutorial/content before actually engaging in it, then what a sad loss! Marc's critique is completely invalid in my mind since it wasn't really a critique at all. More of a "hey don't throw around words like that! I've been working at the top for a long time and know more than you. Plus, I don't need to actually watch, nor read your posts properly in order to critique."

I'm pissed off and annoyed and as you can read, am being completely sarcastic and rude...Sorry.
 
Matthew Scott said:
Brett, I'm not trying to be an authority on such a topic, and if people are making assumptions about the tutorial/content before actually engaging in it, then what a sad loss! Marc's critique is completely invalid in my mind since it wasn't really a critique at all. More of a "hey don't throw around words like that! I've been working at the top for a long time and know more than you. Plus, I don't need to actually watch, nor read your posts properly in order to critique."
Click to expand...
No -- only the first sentence is valid. That I agree with 100%.

It's dangerous to put tutorials out there on the web. There are some pretty bad ones there that misconstrue ideas, make assumptions, and promote inaccurate information. I've recommended Alexis Von Hurkmann's Ripple Core Resolve lessons before as well as Warren Eagles' Resolve class through FXPHD; both are different, but very good. As long as I've been doing this, I got some solid information and a different way at looking at things from both. I try to keep myself open to new ideas and coming at a solution from a different point of view. One of the great things about being a colorist is having to relearn the job every few years; I said elsewhere that I think I've had to learn 12 different color-correction systems in 30 years. Resolve is merely the newest. But the essential strategy does not change.

Some of the best lessons I've ever gotten were from clients who asked the impossible, but I never back down from a challenge. Usually, the result was, "I don't know if we can do that, but let's try this." And the answer was often something I never could have come up with on my own.

BTW, Alexis has a terrific update of his Color Correction Handbook that just hit stores this week, and I'll post a review elsewhere when I get a chance. He comes at color from a visual effects point of view, which I think provides a very different perspective on color -- different from how DPs think, different from how old-school colorists think, but at the same time having the same goals. It helps that Alexis wrote the user manuals for Resolve 9 and Resolve 10, and I think he did a terrific job, particularly compared to what came before.
 
QUOTE: "Not all of "the film look" was a good thing, particularly film damage, developer problems, applicator stains, fogging, mistimes, generation loss, splicing problems, and so on. But then, we have file corruption, compression artifacts, backup issues, and a whole range of different problems with digital." END OF QUOTE. - Just think. Shoot on film and you can have the "best" of both worlds. For filmies of the chemical kind, apparently there has been some sort of a win in Europe with the broadcasters for Super16mm film-originated programming to no longer be banned. Apparently there was some sort of tech issue relating to the randomness of film grain and compression. I guess the case put forward exampled old feature movies being transmitted just fine. If enough Super16mm material gets aired, maybe the aesthetic will re-open a little niche for the SI2K as well. - I forgot, You guys only have to sensor-crop your Scarlets, Epics and Dragons ---. Oh well it was a good thought whilst it lasted.
 
Just to be clear I am not saying Matt is presenting himself as an authority, but the way it's formatted allows for someone to make that a tacit assumption, which isn't something you can hang on him, but still for safety sake I reckon keep it more personal, informal, specific. Perhaps it already is that, IDK. It's mostly just an interesting discussion. I've certainly learned from Matt that you can make the R3D look amazing using indie means, so no disrespect intended.
 
Last edited:
People try to share stuff they are enthused about.
I know. I have done that a few times...

Problem is often as simple as packaging and frazing.

If you say:
Hey... See what I did. THIS is how I made that happen.
Now... very few will get offended and many may learn, if they think the result is of valid interest.

If you say:
I will teach you how to achieve "film look"/"good exposure"/"perfect sound"...
You are simply up shit creek for a number of reasons, allmost whoever you are or what resume you have.

Because you are attempting to make a tangible general rule about an untangible subject which intrigues most of us to the extent that we spend a lot of our lives finding solutions to the riddles surrounding that very theme. And I am afraid many have very individual preferences and definitions of the above terms. And that they even can vary strongly given the result one wants to achieve in the same person.

Fortunately there is no "film look", but there are things that make one feel like one is watching a movie.
And fortunately that is a wide combination of things that vary vastly from Von Triers "the Idiots" to Kurosawas "RAN".


That mystery keeps us all busy.

learning how to achieve different things technically, is allways a good thing, though.

Getting dragged in to insulting discussions about semantics is best done over a beer...
 
Discuss about the "film look" is like speaking of angels... each one has his own idea.
Matthew, thanks for your tutorial. Useful to see your workflow and color …share experiences is always good.

:-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top