That film look: how to get it?

Serena Steuart wrote on 10/29/2013, 7:29 PM

Art Adams's reply to this question might be of interest to some people here.

> How do the makers of the shows get that pure film look??

A lot of what constitutes the "film look" comes down to several key
elements:

(1) Great lighting. This makes everything "look like film," mostly because film is where you generally see better lighting than in video... although that's no longer true as all the people who used to do great film work are now doing great video work.

(2) Great compositions. See (1).

(3) Subtlety of color. Film colors tend not to be really saturated, and saturated colors are a hallmark of the video look. Lower overall color saturation, and especially reduce saturation in highlights. Film doesn't saturate highlights but video saturates colors right up until they clip.

(4) Lots of contrast. See (1).

(5) Softness. Turn the detail circuit on the camera down or off, retaining enough sharpness that the image looks like it's in focus when it is but not so much that you can see every detail in skin imperfections.

(6) Rolled-off highlights. Part of the video look happens when the signal hard clips, which is unpleasant. You'll want to use a hyper gamma or cinegamma curve to try to roll off the highlights so they retain some detail up until they clip. Hopefully the highlights don't change color when they clip. If the highlights look wrong then work hard to make sure nothing in the frame clips.

Some people say you need noise or grain to complete the look, but I disagree. Still, if you like noise/grain, add some and see what happens.

Mostly the "film look" is beautiful lighting and composition and subtle color. There's so real secret to it, just make pretty yet sophisticated images and you'll be fine. (The "sophisticated" part is the hardest and really has more to do with your eye than anything else.)

--
Art Adams
Director of Photography
San Francisco Bay Area | CA | USA

Comments

ushere wrote on 10/29/2013, 7:39 PM

great post, thanks serena.

markymarkNY wrote on 10/29/2013, 8:34 PM

- underexposing during shooting helps tremendously, since in post-production you can bump levels back up while maintaining shadow details

-shallow depth of field for certain shots is also a big part of the "look"

-shadows/ contrast/ lighting: pay attention to Hollywood, often scenes are shot early morning or late afternoon when the sun is at a low angle which makes for great play between light and dark

-light rain or wet streets make for brilliant color effects at night

-perpective: shooting from unusual angles makes things interesting; not all scenes should be at eye level; extreme close-ups should be used at times

-do not zoom during a scene unless it adds to a particular effect; panning should be slow and deliberate

-the cadence of 24p is very different from 60i or 60p which is more like video

-bump contrast and saturation down, making it easier to color correct later

that is all for now, there's definitely more to add

farss wrote on 10/29/2013, 9:31 PM

There's not much I could add to that other than know what you and your gear is capable of and work within its limits. If you don't have the capability to pull off the magic of looking like film don't try, nothing looks worse than some affectation done badly.

Bob.

Serena Steuart wrote on 10/29/2013, 10:38 PM

>>> underexposing during shooting helps tremendously, since in post-production you can bump levels back up while maintaining shadow details<<<

That's a simple statement easily misinterpreted. Underexposing means less light in shadow details and more noise when you bump it back up. The limited dynamic range of 8 bit video allows a smallish margin between "good" and "bad" exposure, so one has to be very aware of which are the critical elements that determine a "good" exposure. You'll note I say "good" rather than "correct".

johnmeyer wrote on 10/29/2013, 11:13 PM

Mr. McGuire: I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_correctionGamma.[/link]

Contrast, brightness, shadows, highlights, etc. are all specific subsets of gamma. I have to deal with the difference in this tonal mapping, between film and video, every day in my film transfer work. There really isn't any similarity between film and video gamma, at least not in the video cameras I can get my hands on.

deusx wrote on 10/29/2013, 11:21 PM

>>>>How do the makers of the shows get that pure film look??<<<

The obvious answer. They use film.

All tv shows that look like film were/are actually shot on film.

wwaag wrote on 10/30/2013, 12:29 AM

Mr. McGuire: Gamma.

Wrong! Plastics!

One of my all time favorite flix. Where has the time gone?

ddm wrote on 10/30/2013, 2:18 AM

>>>All tv shows that look like film were/are actually shot on film.

Not really true anymore. Most 1 hour dramas that had traditionally been shot on film have transitioned almost completely over to digital and almost all of them shooting with the Arri Alexa. And they look as good or better than film ever looked. Personal opinion, of course. The majority of big budget feature films are also shot on digital as well.

farss wrote on 10/30/2013, 2:56 AM

Not only is film being used less and less for acquisition the latest digital cameras are now arguably better than film by every metric.
On top of that even movies that are shot on film still go through a Digital Intermediate which includes dust busting and grain reduction. This process also retains more of the original resolution from the camera negative. With the old completely photochemical process the "print" that we got to see in the cinema was many generations removed from the camera original.

The final irony is that Kodak put quite some effort into making their latest film stocks look more like digital.

One of the reasons why film still has a lot of life left in it has to do with the reliability of cameras. A film camera is a very simple device that can withstand a lot of abuse. A roll of 35mm film is also a lot harder to lose than a CF card, backing up the data during a shoot is a significant cost to a production.

The other advantage that film still retains is the variety of cameras. Sony's F65 might take better looking images but it is a monster compared to the specialised film cameras.

Bob.

Grazie wrote on 10/30/2013, 3:08 AM

farss: "The final irony is that Kodak put quite some effort into making their latest film stocks look more like digital."Hysterical!

Cheers,

Grazie

wwjd wrote on 10/30/2013, 9:53 AM

Waiting for the day when we are done WANTING to look like film, and have accepted the better imaging in higher resolutions, no grain, higher framerates....
Film WAS all there was when all this began, but that's no longer an issue.

But, until then, I'll continue to shoot flat at 24p, add grain, etc :) for fun of doing that, more than the need.

dlion wrote on 10/30/2013, 10:26 AM

+1 wwjd.

flat 24 gives you much more latitude in post. makes a wider range of 'good looks' possible.

ddm wrote on 10/30/2013, 10:56 AM

>>>One of the reasons why film still has a lot of life left in it has to do with the reliability of cameras

I Agree, which is why the Alexa has made such huge inroads into film production, it is a very simple camera to operate. It was designed to be used by the traditional personel, a 1st AC and a 2nd. You do still need a digital loader or data wrangler but the basic operation of the camera couldn't be simpler. And... they've proved to be quite reliable out in the wild.

_Lenny_ wrote on 10/30/2013, 11:55 AM

-shallow depth of field for

Yet, so many people people think a shallow DoF is the film look. I have plenty of films that have virtually no shallow DoF shots, and they still look like film.

For me, one of the better ways to make video look like film is to use progressive mode and desaturate the colours. At least, this works well for footage I've captured using an Canon HV20 and M52.

deusx wrote on 10/30/2013, 12:03 PM

>>>Not really true anymore. Most 1 hour dramas that had traditionally been shot on film have transitioned almost completely over to digital and almost all of them shooting with the Arri Alexa.<<<

Not true.

Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, all shot on film. Those are the top 3 shows of all time in my opinion.

Mad Men switched to digital to cut costs.

Boardwalk Empire, The Closer, Lost, House M.D and The Mentalist as far as I know also shot on film, many more

Of the good shows Dexter is shot digitally, don't know any others for sure. There probably aren't any other good shows left to mention, I think I've mentioned all of them by now

I'm not saying that digital these days looks worse than film, but a lot of it does not look like film, it looks different, sometimes better, sometimes worse.

If you want the film look shoot on film. That is what they do. Otherwise just embrace the digital and make it look the best you can ( whatever that means to you ).

larry-peter wrote on 10/30/2013, 12:37 PM

When people speak simply about “film look” my first reaction is always, “What film?” Film can look as bad (or good) as video. The great films utilize the points made in the first post – lighting, composition, contrast, and I’ll add, the ability to direct the viewer’s eye within the frame. DOF is just one tool used to do this.

Check out Citizen Kane or any of John Alcott’s work with Kubrick to see great deep-focus wide shots. Or Tak Fujimoto’s shallow DOF scenes in Silence of the Lambs. It doesn’t take plugins to achieve either of these looks, just attention to your art (and, a huge budget and crew helps).

A still image taken from a great film continues to look like great film, so I don’t really believe 24 fps is a magic frame rate. Don’t worry about a film look – just make it great and it will be perceived as great.

And although I agree with deusx' assessment of TV shows with a quality look, anytime a show moves to digital production to "cut costs," there is more being affected than just the camera used. You're usually also losing some of the time and tools needed to achieve all the items mentioned in post 1.

Arthur.S wrote on 10/30/2013, 1:07 PM

VidMus wrote on 10/30/2013, 1:53 PM

atom12 said, " Don’t worry about a film look – just make it great and it will be perceived as great."

+1, +1, +1 and +1

ddm wrote on 10/30/2013, 2:50 PM

>>>>>>Not really true anymore. Most 1 hour dramas that had traditionally been shot on film have transitioned almost completely over to digital and almost all of them shooting with the Arri Alexa.<<<

>>>Not true.

Sorry, true. You might argue that YOUR favorite shows are (were) shot on film, but what I am saying is that most (as in MOST) 1 hour dramas NOW shoot digital. The Sopranos, my personal favorite TV show of all time, HouseMD, even Breaking Bad, come on, those shows started long before the digital transition was cemented. As far as the few others that remain on film, there has to be a concerted effort from the producers or other above the line bigshots to justify the cost anymore. Sometimes that can be an aging actress who insists on it, or a big name director (like Martin Scorsese ala Boardwalk Empire) etc, otherwise the film or digital equation never even comes up anymore.

John_Cline wrote on 10/30/2013, 5:43 PM

I am not at all a fan of 24p, but when I'm required (usually at gunpoint) to get that film-cadence feel, I shoot at 30p instead. It still has most of the motion weirdness of 24p, but is much easier to edit on a 60i or 60p timeline without having to deal with 3:2 pull-down.

markymarkNY wrote on 10/30/2013, 8:42 PM

"do not zoom during a scene unless it adds to a particular effect; panning should be slow and deliberate"

Have you been to the cinema lately Mark? The amount of movement/zooming/panning has increased remarkably over the last decade or so. Not always for the good IMHO. :-(

.............................................................
Yes I have! Especially the blockbuster action flicks, you will see quick zooms, and wild pans sometimes - amateur/ indie films are a different genre. Poorly executed zooms, to me, are like a camcorder video of a little league game.

Steve Mann wrote on 10/30/2013, 9:12 PM

"That film look: how to get it?"
Shoot on film.

Seriously, ask ten people what is "film look", and you will get twelve answers. At least.

So, rather than ask "how to get it?", why not tell us what it is about digital production that you don't think looks like film. Maybe if you better define "it", more specifically.

Rob Franks wrote on 10/30/2013, 9:57 PM

Film is dead.... and so should be its antiquated look.

ushere wrote on 10/30/2013, 11:41 PM

have NEVER cared what a program looked like - if it interests me i'll watch it, even if it looks like vhs ;-)

this obsession with looks, fx, etc., is simply eye candy, used more often than not to cover up (take your choice); bad camerawork, poor scripting, lack of imagination, unrestrained enthusiasm for gimmicks, etc,

however, i started my career on low band cut to cut with a renowned director who though ANY effect was one too many. there was also a stage thereafter when i was operating the first generation of digital fx mixers (such as, zeno, abacus, ampex ado, etc.,) that i actually became nauseated by flying multifaceted cubes, feedback trails, etc., etc.,

as written elsewhere here and in many other threads, it's CONTENT that matters - no amount of looks / fx / etc., is ever going to get across a poorly scripted, badly thought out program, even to a generation seemingly enamored by mtv clips.

[/r]