Why do most shorts and reels shot on Red don't look Cine at all ?

[Ben Scott]

Fair enough. Looking 'cinematic' can be very different from 'looking like film'.

 

[Evin Grant]

I feel there is also a general desire to shoot digital as "clean" as possible, sometimes with the intention of adding grain in post but then that often gets nixed as everyone watching the film gets used to the clean look. I've always shot my shorts at slightly higher ISOs so that the image has "texture" this texture/grain (actually noise but at controlled levels) really helps add the phycological "film look" in peoples mind. It needs to be applied by a DP with skill who understands when it's texture and when it's distracting but when used properly with all of the other production value elements that have been mentioned already you can get a quite convincing and cinematic feel.

Here are a two moderately low budget films I've shot on Reds that I think are of the more "cinematic" or "film" look...
(sorry for the 720P)
http://www.evingrant.com/flicks/Brumby720full_web.mov
http://www.evingrant.com/flicks/HOTEL720web.mov

And this is a very early (full budget) commercial shot by Dion Beebe (I was 2nd unit DP) on the original R1...
http://www.evingrant.com/flicks/ford_ice_h720.mov

 

[shashbugu]

I feel there is also a general desire to shoot digital as "clean" as possible, sometimes with the intention of adding grain in post but then that often gets nixed as everyone watching the film gets used to the clean look. I've always shot my shorts at slightly higher ISOs so that the image has "texture" this texture/grain (actually noise but at controlled levels) really helps add the phycological "film look" in peoples mind. It needs to be applied by a DP with skill who understands when it's texture and when it's distracting but when used properly with all of the other production value elements that have been mentioned already you can get a quite convincing and cinematic feel.

Here are a two moderately low budget films I've shot on Reds that I think are of the more "cinematic" or "film" look...
(sorry for the 720P)
http://www.evingrant.com/flicks/Brumby720full_web.mov
http://www.evingrant.com/flicks/HOTEL720web.mov

And this is a very early (full budget) commercial shot by Dion Beebe (I was 2nd unit DP) on the original R1...
http://www.evingrant.com/flicks/ford_ice_h720.mov

Wow Evin! Nice
I'll have to try out your high ISO trick.

 

[shashbugu]

Fair enough. Looking 'cinematic' can be very different from 'looking like film'.

AMEN

 

[Marc Wielage]

So How is it possible that so many red owners have the right camera, capture interessting shots and come not even close in any way to this same results as we can consider as a film look? Do they use a red camera with cheaper lenses ? Is the lighting not good afterall ? Bad post production ? Settings what don't match to the environment ?

I think it's a question of hiring good people and spending money.

When in doubt, shoot tests and bring the material to a good post house and figure out how far the images can be pushed (high or low) before things fall apart.

I think lighting, lenses, and filtration is pretty much everything when it comes to image quality. The skill and artistry of the cinematographer can't be minimized. No camera can make up for a bad DP. No colorist can fix photographic problems beyond a certain point.

The "film look" is an ephemeral term that means different things to different people. I think a lot of the look of Spiderman is due to John Schwartzman, along with Sony Colorworks colorist John Persichetti. Both of them do great work.

 

[Justin McAleece]

I actually think good actors are important for achieving the "cinematic look". So many micro budget and student films hire their friends to act, or don't bother with auditions and casting calls. To me, the difference between a totally unschooled, amateur actor and even an unremarkable but serviceable professional actor is like night and day. You don't have to be an acting aficionado to notice the difference either, I think. Audiences pick up on it. You can masterfully light a beautiful interior set but if you plop a bad actor in front of the lens it's going to be a dead give-away that you're watching a student film.

If you've noticed a lot of "un-cinematic" indie/student film reels that shot on RED it has everything to do with the size of their budget (and their own skill) and nothing to do with the camera. Even if they could have shot on 35mm or even Imax I can guarantee you a project produced on a micro-budget by amateurs wouldn't look any more "cinematic" for it (sorry if I offended any micro-budget amateur filmmakers out there).

Not only does the skill of the actors greatly affect the 'cinematic' value of a piece, but it's their look as well. You can put George Clooney in a somewhat bland shot with simple lighting and a subtle grade and the shot will look significantly more 'cinematic' than the exact shot with a not so attractive and not so leading man looking person. In fact, the shot will still feel more 'cinematic' than what would otherwise be a better lit, shot and graded scene. Just as the dozen or so ingredients that big budget movies spend big money to make polished, the look and physical confidence of your actors is very important. Probably more so than the camera.

 

[Logan Smith]

Not only does the skill of the actors greatly affect the 'cinematic' value of a piece, but it's their look as well. You can put George Clooney in a somewhat bland shot with simple lighting and a subtle grade and the shot will look significantly more 'cinematic' than the exact shot with a not so attractive and not so leading man looking person. In fact, the shot will still feel more 'cinematic' than what would otherwise be a better lit, shot and graded scene. Just as the dozen or so ingredients that big budget movies spend big money to make polished, the look and physical confidence of your actors is very important. Probably more so than the camera.

Definitely. And you don't necessarily even need to be handsome or attractive for the camera to love you. There's hundreds of character actors in Hollywood who make a living by looking unattractive and/or unusual. Most of the times their roles aren't too dramatically challenging, they just have the right look. If I had to choose between a guy who didn't fit the role but was an amazing actor and a guy who wasn't a very good actor but had an amazing look and fit the role perfectly I'd almost always pick the latter, unless it was a particularly challenging role.

I think Daniel Craig has the most amazing look, his face is interesting. He looks great from every angle. He's not traditionally handsome either, I think, he has striking features. He's the kind of actor you could make a movie about him mowing lawns for two hours and shoot it on an iPhone and it would be enthralling somehow.

 

[Justin McAleece]

Logan hit the nail on the head.

 

[Michael J Brennan]

So How is it possible that so many red owners have the right camera, capture interesting shots and come not even close in any way to this same results as we can consider as a film look?

Given that the image is of reasonable quality and is not interlace, it is the content that is the primary driver that we associate with film, not the technical aesthetics of the camera.

It is very difficult to make a DIY two minute duration reel that looks big budget cinematic as you are competing with the high production values.

Also, a common mistake is for DPs to edit their own reels, if you have access to an editor more talented than yourself then use them!



Mike Brennan

 

[sam karr]

A lot of red shorts and reel are too sharp too. If you check on American Cinematographer or any BTS production infos you notice that they never use the whole image, it's almost always windowed to stabilize, to zoom or for 3D purpose. And they use soft filters. People use Epics to make their shorts and think that, as they paid for plenty of pixels, they should show all these pixels on the screen. Plus they want to use ultra sharp lenses. The Girl with the dragon tattoo image is cropped, it's only 3500 pixels large max and it's really gorgeous. Of course lighting, acting, color correction, music etc. are super important too.

 

[Scott Crawley]

The vast majority of amateur films that I have seen that do not look cinematic have two things in common. They fail to block scenes effectively or compose shots properly. IMHO those are the two skills that make all of the difference. If you do them right, even a banal story, plain face and even flat lighting can look cinematic. The film may suck, but it will look cinematic if you get those two elements right.

 

[Peter Gosens]

Just playing a bit the devil's advocate, why is the red not in any Oscar nomination?

Of course lenses and camera make a huge impact on your end product. Its the actually device making the film, so... The Red is a very technical camera, with a huge range and a lot of features. I personally think a lot of people just don't control all the technical aspects that well.

The dynamic range in recording, but also the low contrast in Zeiss glass gives you endless possibilities afterwards. Its super plain without any look, you really need to do something to get results. This huge play field is just too much for a lot people (excluding time-pressure or low-budgets). Causing a lot of over simplified products, workflows and people ending up with this sort of "untreated" look (which can be nice to some extent).

 

[matthew hendriks]

I think you are right, it's a chain reaction of all kind of choices what lead to a final result but isn't there such thing as a guideline for specific situations, productionstandards what could make this more easy ?

Did anybody see the film Homefront shot on the Arri Alexa ? I am imresssed. I did not had a digital feeling with it at all but we deal with an expert in Cinematography and a big production again.
When I searched the technical specs up I was suprised it was shot on a digital camera. I wonder how It would have looked on a Red Epic and why they choose Alexa instead.

Just playing a bit the devil's advocate, why is the red not in any Oscar nomination?

Of course lenses and camera make a huge impact on your end product. Its the actually device making the film, so... The Red is a very technical camera, with a huge range and a lot of features. I personally think a lot of people just don't control all the technical aspects that well.

The dynamic range in recording, but also the low contrast in Zeiss glass gives you endless possibilities afterwards. Its super plain without any look, you really need to do something to get results. This huge play field is just too much for a lot people (excluding time-pressure or low-budgets). Causing a lot of over simplified products, workflows and people ending up with this sort of "untreated" look (which can be nice to some extent).

 

[Paramon Ivanovich]

Did anybody see the film Homefront shot on the Arri Alexa ? I am imresssed. I did not had a digital feeling with it at all

i actually though it was shot on DSLR, but Stallone wouldn't do that

 

[matthew hendriks]

I found this, it should be the configuration as used in the film Homefront, I wonder what is that Blue round thing is ?

 

[Logan Smith]

The vast majority of amateur films that I have seen that do not look cinematic have two things in common. They fail to block scenes effectively or compose shots properly. IMHO those are the two skills that make all of the difference. If you do them right, even a banal story, plain face and even flat lighting can look cinematic. The film may suck, but it will look cinematic if you get those two elements right.

I agree. So many amateur directors don't understand that a lot of what constitutes a director's bread and butter is the quality of his staging and blocking. And by quality I mainly mean precision. A director should have an exact vision of what he wants; the exact look, framing, mood, emotional beats, etc. So many amateur films it looks like the director just went "okay, we'll do a wide shot, put the camera somewhere around here, actor A says his line and then actor B gets angry and walks over here" whereas a Fincher or Kubrick would have a page or two worth of notes, they would have thought about the psychological implications of using a 27mm instead of a 35mm lens, they would have blueprints and have done rehearsals and when they show up to shoot they'll spend hours just playing around with each line and camera move. Obviously, a micro-budget film won't have the time to get it absolutely perfect, but a little extra time spent storyboarding and planning, pushing yourself to think more cinematically, can go a LONG way.

 

[Evin Grant]

I wonder what is that Blue round thing is ?

That is the EVF with blue velcro on it.

 

[Peter Gosens]

I agree. So many amateur directors don't understand that a lot of what constitutes a director's bread and butter is the quality of his staging and blocking. And by quality I mainly mean precision. A director should have an exact vision of what he wants; the exact look, framing, mood, emotional beats, etc. So many amateur films it looks like the director just went "okay, we'll do a wide shot, put the camera somewhere around here, actor A says his line and then actor B gets angry and walks over here" whereas a Fincher or Kubrick would have a page or two worth of notes, they would have thought about the psychological implications of using a 27mm instead of a 35mm lens, they would have blueprints and have done rehearsals and when they show up to shoot they'll spend hours just playing around with each line and camera move. Obviously, a micro-budget film won't have the time to get it absolutely perfect, but a little extra time spent storyboarding and planning, pushing yourself to think more cinematically, can go a LONG way.

100% agree on that one. The same with what I ment. All this range in the camera en lenses need a vision or an idea to have a use. Otherwise it all is just drifting.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

So How is it possible that so many red owners have the right camera, capture interessting shots and come not even close in any way to this same results as we can consider as a film look?

"Film look" impression is subjective and relative.
Creation of a look in cinematography is a collaborative effort. Regardless of any camera ownership, one person is unlikely to envision a scene, set the scene with all the light and other elements while managing to compose the shot at no expense to number of setups, and finally color the material, achieving the same "cine" look made by a full film crew with a budget. Expecting this is unrealistic.


If you are referring strictly to picture aesthetic factors related to camera choice...few grabs from different cinematographers, rather simple setups yet each with a particular aesthetic:




Short film, music video, music video, short film, short film.

 

[Nick Morrison]

RED is far more affordable than an Alexa, so it's understandable you'll see more student work shot on it. RED ONE's are very prevalent on low budget work too...for the same reason.

That said, it's a true cinematic tool and it's "output" is completely user dependent. In the hands of a master, this "tool" can generate award winning work (see Ridley Scott, David Fincher, Stephen Soderburgh, etc). In the hands of a mere mortal, it can easily look DSLR - in fact worse if the RAW materials and grade are poorly handled.

Shooting on RED demands more of you - it demands a basic understanding of RAW, of grading, of many of the basic principles of cinematography, in order to maximize it's potential.

However, as with everything, practice makes perfect and I'm confident any student who shoots enough on RED will eventually - as with all things - learn to master this tool and produce stunning imagery. When used properly a RED is an awesome cinematic device.