I have read so much about the so-called film-look. Various proponents suggest shooting in 24/25p or color grading to look like some Tarantino film.
IMO the film look is none of these. 24p is a starting point, I guess, but it does not really give you that look that you get when you view a real movie.
Some suggest that making colors washed out or shallow depth (bokeh) makes footage look like film. Again it may do but its not the complete story. As an example, take Bollywood movies (shot on film) and Indian serials off Star India (shot on video) - both have very colourful and well lit scenes with lenses often at wide. In theory there is nothing to separate them. Except when you put them next to each other, you instantly know which is the movie and which is the video.
But what really makes the movie look like a movie? What is the science behind it and why is so difficult to make DSLR footage look like film?

I'm not an expert, and it's fine to disagree, but it's a combination of so much stuff and there is no one magic bullet.

1) 24p gives a certain look in terms of movement and motion blur, but then you need to keep an eye on shutter speed too.

2) Colour profiles and grading makes a huge difference. It's not just about getting the colour right, or making it more or less saturated etc, it's also how the gamma curves are applied, how different colours saturate differently

3) It's about how a scene was shot in terms of DOF and other aesthetics. Not all films are shot with shallow DOF in all scenes, so some people's idea of the the holy grail of shooting with f1.2 is just crackers

4) It's about lighting of the scene too, which has a massive effect on the final outcome

5) Highlights and shadows can be perceived very differently on film vs digital, so these need to be matched

6) Noise vs Grain. Digital can have a noise that's not very pleasant, but many people either live with it or simply de-noise without adding grain back in to the mix. Film was never 'noise free' because it has the grain element, so using overlays (e.g. RGrain) is one more piece of the puzzle.

There are more things you could add (and hopefully people will jump in and list them), but I really don't think any one thing goes in to it - it's all about refining the recipe to taste.

One more thing.... the film look.... err.... which film stock are we talking about? Since each different film stock type has a different 'look', which one do we use as the baseline by which everything else can be measured? You only need to go to sites like filmconvert.com to see how the various stocks make a huge difference to how your picture can look.

If one wants a generic film look, they should shoot some film. It might look like garbage and nothing like anything seen in the cinema, but it would indisputably be a "film look". :)

I think you nailed it with your Bollywood example. Film has been used to shoot many different looks. If the goal is to use a digital camera and to make it look like you were using film, one should start with a particular feature film and try to emulate it as a starting point. But because we aren't painting by numbers here, there's nothing wrong with using an example as the base and then adding one's own signature. Unless one is doing a parody, be creative!

Here's a short, certainly incomplete, list of things that go into a "look":
* Frame rate (24 fps for almost all film)
* Aspect ratio (a "wide" variety)
* Resolution (should be high to avoid a quantized look)
* Anti-aliasing (film doesn't alias)
* Graceful white levels (film saturates gradually)
* Depth of field (film can be shallow or deep, but an S35 sensor under typical lighting gets things close - wide shots are deep and closeups are shallow)
* Lighting (can be hard or soft, but should be balanced/artistic)
* Fog and atmospheric effects (you can light the air!)
* Art direction, costumes, makeup and color palette (if it's already the right color, grading is easy)
* Color filters for black and white shooting (Orson Welles liked red filters)
* Diffusion filter (this can give a glossy look and help model older lenses)
* Grading (digital can go way beyond film)
* Noise (you can add film noise, but there is a current trend toward extreme noise reduction. See "300")
* Sharpness (digital is often too sharp/detailed. Note the the R, G & B film planes are separated, so color film is never perfectly sharp. Older lenses were only so sharp as well. Diffusion filters help limit sharpness.)

So about all we can do is shoot at 24 fps, use good filmmaking techniques, use an S35 sensor with sensible lighting and aperture settings, manage the exposure well, and avoid over-sharpening. One can add film grain effects to emulate older stocks, but modern film can be very, very clean.

Frankly, the obsession with the "film look" made a lot of sense when most cameras shot interlace at 30 Hz on small sensors with extreme sharpening and limited dynamic range. This delivered a very different "video look". We sought 24 fps cameras and attached 35mm spinning ground glass adapters in an attempt to avoid a cheap, video look without spending a bomb on short ends and processing fees. Today, we can create beautiful moving, cinematic images with a wide variety of tools.

Again, unless one is doing a parody or period piece, we probably shouldn't worry too much about emulating film. With today's great cameras and lenses, it makes sense to create a great look that supports the story and stimulates the audience.

Dave and I posted in parallel - and I agree with every word in Dave's post - except where he says he's not an expert. :)

I think Dave got most of it. I thing lighting is a big part of it. On how you light and the clothing. I call it the cinema look. Here a video with Dave Dugdale talking to Tom Antos about it.
Lighting Tips Interview with Tom Antos - YouTube

This demonstrates why there is no one generic film look. :)

Experimental Film. Scratching/ painting/ rayogram direct onto 8mm on Vimeo

For more on the history of experimental film, check this out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/movies/free-radicals-by-pip-chodorov-on-experimental-film.html?_r=0

I always though the 'film' look is frame rate and color profiles. Most of the other things which complement it include careful and deliberate shots, so to speak. I don't mean staging, but just being conscious of and using your lighting, framing, and using DOF as a tool to focus attention, as appropriate. No reframing during a shot. Keeping your shot smooth and stabilized.

I don't mean staging, but just being conscious of and using your lighting, framing, and using DOF as a tool to focus attention, as appropriate. No reframing during a shot. Keeping your shot smooth and stabilized.

These aren't exclusive to the film look, just good practise for lots of things, including the video look :)

Incidently one of main gripes with video footage is the 'soap opera' look which I absolutely hate.

Incidently one of main gripes with video footage is the 'soap opera' look which I absolutely hate.

What about the soap operas that were shot on film? :) OK - they don't do that now - but they used to. So, what is the 'soap opera look'? Can you be specific?

Dave & Jon pretty much nailed all the aspects of the term "film look" but if I could simplify it I'd summarise the film look as simply "a visually expensive/calculated look that draws the viewer into another world."

Thanks Nicolas,

Along the lines of drawing "the viewer into another world", is the concept of carefully manipulating the viewer's gaze. Interestingly, there are abstract filmmakers who feel that this is fascistic and who deliberately use long cuts with no specific point of interest to allow the viewer to gaze around the scene. It can still be on film, but it's definitely not the Hollywood look.

I remember the first showings of NHK's 8K Super Hi-Vision. It included detailed images of Google maps and wide deep focus shots without a particular point of interest. I remember feeling overwhelmed with details. Ironically, it felt a bit oppressive. Filmmakers will need to be especially directive when shooting 8K for 8K display.

A good example of video vs. film is the budget sitcom. You build a set, put an array of lights on scaffolding set up multiple cameras, and rely on the stage view of a master shot. The focus is deep, the lighting flat, and the camera motion minimized. The only thing that directs your gaze is that all the characters turn to the person with the dialog. By the 1940s, Hollywood cinema had generally moved past flat master shot productions. Then again, if you're doing an early 30s period piece...

This keeps coming up. Insomuch as there is a "film look" it comes from the way the film is projected in a mechanical projector - double flash 24fps with equivalent black. You can't do that with video. Most movies today are shot on video. Reverse telecine video, you get the film look. Telecine film, it becomes video. Lighting, dynamic range, 24p, etc. etc has nothing whatsoever to do with a "generic" film look. If you want the look of a particular film but capture on video, set up frame scans side by side with equivalent video footage, (lens, lighting, composition, AR etc etc) color balance the video until it looks the same, but it still won't look like film until you reverse telecine.

Yes - TLDR. Sorry....

It's good to revisit this once in a while. As time goes on, it strikes me that my son, almost 10, has never seen projected film. I saw projected film a few months ago at a private cinema, and was surprised at the dirt and the weave. Amazing how we get 'desensitised' or 'habituated' into a look over time.

The UK Netflix service has started showing Sky News as a 'live feed', but at a 25fps 720 stream. It was incredible how 'wrong' news looks at 25p. Compare and contrast to the Hobbit filmed at 48fps and looking like a televised stage play.

It reminds me of this sketch:(Skip to 2:15) Monty Python Royal Society for Putting Things on top of other things legendas - YouTube

"Gentlemen, I have bad news. This room is... SURROUNDED BY FILM!"

But where it really seems to kick in is in 'Detail Enhancement'. Electronic sharpening. There was a brief scene in one of the Shrek movies - something to do with a pastiche of 'Cop Shows'. For a filmic CGI movie, it seems to capture the video look well - using a synthesised 'high frame rate' and electronic detail enhancement.

You didn't get this on film. You relied on high quality optics and precision mechanics, and even then it wasn't 'perfect'. The thing about a filmic image is that it starts off with so much more information than a video image, albeit in a sort of soggy analogue way. It's often not about what's *in* the picture, but what *isn't*.

Take Star Trek Into Darkness: I sat in the cinema - only watching a 2K release, not 4K, and became absolutely boggle-eyed at the detail in the costumes - the texture of the fabrics. You can see the weave of the fabric in the Cumberbatch character, such is the detail of the digital negative from the camera. And that leads to the concept of musicals "I came out humming the sets" if you see what I mean. Well, remembering fabrics from a sci-fi movie. Hmmmm.

Switching gears, my professional life has been in Corporate video. We were always looking for tricks that added 'production value' - that made videos look more expensively produced. We couldn't shoot on film, we could rarely afford dollies or cranes, but we could light carefully and softly. But it was always the electronic detail circuits that dialled up the 'crunch' factor, and cheaper cameras with their fixed lenses needed more help than the big DigiBetas with £15k lenses (nearly two decades ago - gawd, I feel old). A cinematic image will tend to have, in addition to shallow depth of field, the camera in motion for reframes, longer tracking shots, the equivalent of zooms, and so on. Nature of the beast. Cinema zooms were almost unheard of. You see zooms on the news, you don't see zooms at the flicks. What looks like a cinematic shot? There you go.

There's been a lot of testing and comparisons between high quality 'digital negative' (e.g. Red Raw, Arri Log-C) and actual film, and roughly speaking we're getting there, except for the last few little bits of the way film chemically reacts to light which is different to the way an electronic sensor reads it. If you revisit the Zacuto tests from a few years ago, there's a test with a lightbulb.

Skip to 16 minutes and 14 seconds (!)
Zacuto Great Camera Shootout 2010: It's all About Latitude - YouTube

The way film sees this clear lightbulb and its filament, versus the electronic cameras... Up to Generation X, we'd swing the vote to film. Gen Y might also lean that way. My 10 year old son will be decidedly 'Meh' about the distinction.

But finally, let me return to the 'desensitised' or 'habituated' problem. We're seeing Directors becoming habituated to the 'Raw' look after days or weeks on set looking at the bare camera image. That grey, ephemeral 'infinitely subtle' (i.e. 'dull') image from the camera that the DoP can take you through every stop of dynamic range is the look that the Director falls in love with, and the concept of looking at it in Rec709 is anathema. Cine films, and I mean films seen in a cinema, digital or not, are seen in perfect conditions for brightness and contrast. Grading suites, similarly. Most of our work here is seen on the web, on a domestic LCD TV set if we're lucky. The infinitely subtle 'raw' looks end up looking grey and washed out in the 'colouring-in book' world of web 4:2:0 8 bit screens, yet that 'flat' look is our new 'shallow depth of field'.

Right... returning you to the original programming, LOL - back to editing.

why is so difficult to make DSLR footage look like film?
that i can tell you my friend - dynamic range
plus , in order of importance (MHO)
DOP, lighting, color correction

But finally, let me return to the 'desensitised' or 'habituated' problem. We're seeing Directors becoming habituated to the 'Raw' look after days or weeks on set looking at the bare camera image. That grey, ephemeral 'infinitely subtle' (i.e. 'dull') image from the camera that the DoP can take you through every stop of dynamic range is the look that the Director falls in love with, and the concept of looking at it in Rec709 is anathema.

That's not a "Raw" look, that is Log.

That's not a "Raw" look, that is Log.

Huh, I wouldn't have thought Ren & Stimpy had anything to do with the film looks...

The Log Song - Ren & Stimpy (Deadwood HoN) - YouTube

I've wondered about this elusive "film look" on video ever since the Panasonic DVX100 camera arrived. [And also how the old PAL format on British shows looks like film naturally].

Besides all the technical reasons about how film and video handles highlights and darks differently, I read a good article discussing Peter Jackson's Hobbit being shot on a high frame rate and I think the film look is mostly about the lower frame rate.

24 frames per second makes things more dream like, and our brain is forced to fill in some of the things. Higher frame rate video like the newscasts and soap operas makes things look like reality and we respond to it differently.

48 FPS and Beyond: How High Frame Rate Films Affect Perception - Tested (http://www.tested.com/art/movies/452387-48-fps-and-beyond-how-high-frame-rates-affect-perception/)

I have the 8mm film application on my iPhone which shoots at a low frame rate and it feels a lot like film.

I have to agree with everything said above, really many great points. Also a bit overwhelming. To reduce to not-quite-the-absurd, here are highlights as I'd prioritize them for accessibility, cost, & ease. The OP is starting with a big sensor...

* In-camera sharpening, we used to call it detail. Turn it all the way down. Save sharpening for post and do it with a light hand, scene-to-scene or even shot-to-shot. Nothing says "video" like aggressive in-camera sharpening & detailing. You have control in post.

* Deliberately design the image.
* Light to a dynamic range that can be captured by the camera. Adjust such parameters in the cam as can be controlled to help with this, like flatter (or wider) profiles. "Expose to the right", that is, no highlights without details. No shadows without details. Provide this full dynamic range for post correction & grading.
* Use shallow DoF deliberately. Use deep DoF deliberately.
* Use a tripod. Motivated to deliver a hand-held look? Use a tripod to create it.
* No pans, tilts, zooms to reframe during a shot. Build sequences of shots to portray action.
* Camera movement is a nice sweetener. A slider is the least expensive way to get it. Practice before you get to the shoot! Not all slider moves need be horizontal, learn all the different ways to use it.
* Everything in the frame needs to be looked at. Does it add or subtract from the storytelling?

* Get good direct sound recording always. In many or most cases, this means a dedicated sound recordist.

* Develop good stories, with good characters, and credible performances.

* Post skills need to match all this deliberative production, all the basics, but also dialog editing, spotting & mixing for music & SFX, color correction & grading, etc.

* Mastering & creating distributions...

**************************************************************************
All the above is additive, do this, do that, etc.

I have another theory - the audience experience is subtractive.

That is, once they're with your story, they'll stay with it, until the number of miscues rises to the point that they disengage. One little miscue, like a blown highlight, a murkey corner, a jump cut, or a bad line isn't going to lose them. But when enough miscues occur, the viewer disengages from the experience. No amount of good work will bring them back.

As long as we are talking about the "film look" I wanted to broaden the discussion. Aesthetics--

I'm about to do a final edit on my independent feature movie (shot on a C100) and I just purchased film convert because I like the film look. I'm in my fifties and obviously grew up on film. When watching "narrative films" in the theaters it alway put me into a different world of make believe. I would leave the real world behind and for two hours would be in a different place. I loved it. Movie stars were gods and special people in our lives of make believe.

Today when watching "video" there is no make believe for me because the actors and sets look ordinary and my mind cannot escape. Everything is too sharp and over saturated for the most part.

Today's entering film makers footage shoot on video- short films, trailers, etc look just that-- amateur. It's looks like ordinary life which I can see outside my house window every day.

But today's audience is 16-24 typically and didn't grow up on film although the studios come out with film quality projects.

My thoughts are that independent narrative filmmakers should always use a "film" look and your project will most always do better in the minds of your audience and be more successful. Comments?

One perspective is that film is about what you don't show.

For instance, 24 fps doesn't show all of the motion.
By reducing detail, limiting DOF, and using diffusion and grain, we don't show all of the detail.
By avoiding the wide, stagy, master shots and by framing tight, we don't show all of the environment.
By using shadow and fog, we don't show all of the objects.
By using black and white, sepia, or teal/orange grading, we don't show all of the colors.
Through subtlety of script and acting, we don't show all of the characters' thoughts and feelings.
We even use makeup so we don't show all of the actors' blemishes.

By the same token, we want high quality tools and techniques so we don't show unrelated stuff like aliasing, block artifacts, contours, digital noise, blown highlights, and the odd boom mic.

So rather than "more, more, more", it can be helpful to think "less, less, less."

Hitchcock knew exactly what he was doing when he designed that shower scene. :)

Of all the things mentioned above they all add to the film-look. However, they do not define the film-look, IMO.
If you were to take away all these attributes and just show film and video side by side you will still pick out the film as film. [I am talking about viewing on a tv screen].

If it was just the 24fps that was the main reason then why does not 24p video not show as film?

I am beginning to think that movies are treated in some ways (frame-rate slow-down, telecine, etc) that is causing the main effect on tv. I could be wrong but this is one big question that no one has a definitive answer to.

Having shot digital black and white photos (with a 5D Mark II) and medium format, 60mm x 60mm black and white photos (with a Bronica S2a), I can also generally see the difference between film and digital - even though there is no frame rate, double flashing, or other time-based effect. Using black and white, this also avoids any color differences.

The differences I see come down to these things:
* Dynamic range & Brightness curve
* Grain
* Sharpness

Each is very subtle. One can theoretically shoot within the dynamic range of the sensor and apply a film-like gamma curve, but somehow it's hard to produce a curve that looks just like film. If you only have 8-bits, that can add contour lines - like a topographical map - which don't exit on film.

Grain on film can be very strong (at a dark wedding reception I pushed some film to 6400 ISO) or very clean (100 ISO B&W film in bright conditions). Film doesn't have pixels - but once you scan it, it does. Yet it still retains the feeling of film. So it's not the lack of pixels but it's the presence of grain. Well, it might also be that many processes happen well before the scanning and the creation of pixels.

Sharpening is really interesting. Believe it or not, it can happen chemically on film. Consider a dark area on photographic paper. The dark area consumes the active chemical in the developer and starts to deplete it, so the darkening will slow down. A bright area doesn't have much of a reaction, so the developer remains strong here.

Now consider a transition between black and white. Here, the developer is only partially depleted. That means that the edge of the white area is less developed and the edge of the black area is more developed than the larger black and white areas. This creates a self-sharpening effect; however, this is also very subtle. With no pixels or bit limitations, this sharpening creates no aliasing, contouring, or other harsh effects.

Countering this sharpening are the older, softer lenses often used with film. Again, this is analog and subtle. The lack of modern coatings can introduce diffusion.

Yes, you can take a digital image and make it nearly indistinguishable from film, but it's not easy. You need an image that doesn't push the limits of digital, and it should shot in bright conditions so we don't expect strong film grain. Finally, the image must be processed with a deft hand. Adapting an older lens to the digital camera also helps.

Also, one needs to use older film techniques. One can use harder lighting and color filters for a vintage, black and white look.

In the end, you might replicate film perfectly, but the result won't necessarily feel modern. So we use softer light, different contrast, more sharpening, etc. Now it looks modern and attractive to today's audience, but it will look less like film.

So we're likely at a transition. Recently, video looked crappy, so we wanted a film look. Now that video can look great but a bit technical, some still want the warmth of film. As time goes on, "film" will simply mean "vintage" or "old". It will no longer represent beauty but a time long past.

Of all the things mentioned above they all add to the film-look. However, they do not define the film-look, IMO.
If you were to take away all these attributes and just show film and video side by side you will still pick out the film as film. [I am talking about viewing on a tv screen].

If it was just the 24fps that was the main reason then why does not 24p video not show as film?

I am beginning to think that movies are treated in some ways (frame-rate slow-down, telecine, etc) that is causing the main effect on tv. I could be wrong but this is one big question that no one has a definitive answer to.
It seems to have just been naturally assumed that "film-look" is better.... but is it?

On the whole, I'd say "yes", at least historically, but there are various attributes associated with film that I'd call positively undesirable - dirt, scratching, weave may be being the most obvious. Frame rate? Well, 24/25fps is obviously associated with film, but does it really look better than 50/60 fields/sec? Personally, I'm not so sure - I think a lot of that may be down to psychology and past association. That frame rate has been associated with film, and TV drama shot via film has tended to look better than that shot electronically, so it becomes good by association. A bit like associating the ringing of a bell with the arrival of food...... :-)

So if not framerate, why has film for TV tended to be associated with "quality" in the past? It's interesting (living in the UK) to hear John say:
And also how the old PAL format on British shows looks like film naturally
At first I was rather dismissive of that remark - why should PAL/NTSC make a difference? But having seen quite a few 1970's TV dramas recently, it got me thinking, and he may have a point. Nothing to do with PAL per se, but maybe more that such dramas tended to be shot with far lower levels of aperture correction than tended to be the norm at the time - the pictures tended to look softer compared to such as game shows etc of the time, but far smoother, less edgy.

And personally, I think that is the biggest single factor in making the image look "nice", the biggest single factor which made "film-look" so desirable in the past. In the UK in the 70's it was normal for exteriors to be shot on 16mm film, interiors electronic. And if you look at a programme like the "Onedin Line" now on a modern high quality TV, it's noticeable how much better the electronic sequences look than those on film - at least overall.

What is not so good are some of the artifacts of the tube cameras of the time - registration errors, low dynamic range (though in the studio tends to be compensated for by lighting), comet tailing etc.

But move on to now, and all that is in the past, with HD the intrinsic resolution is such that very low levels of detail enhancement can be fine - and the downsides of film-look (weave, scratches etc) are also a thing of the past. To the extent that now it can sometimes be very difficult with high quality material to tell if the original was film or electronic in the first place. With 25p video, even the motion is no longer a giveaway.

The most definitive thing I've seen on the subject is a BBC R&D paper, which is probably over ten years old now - The film look: It?s not just jerky motion - Publications - BBC R&D (http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/whitepaper053) - which gives some real science behind the subject. Even if you don't read the whole thing, it's worth skipping to the end and the conclusions - in particular, I'm quite amused by "Other factors that contribute to a "film-look" are perhaps best regarded as faults of film, rather than features, and perhaps should best be ignored" Personally, I'm minded to put the 24/25fps in that category (though maybe as a "limitation" rather than "fault").

Thanks everyone who contributed. This has been enlightning. However, I am not convinced. I believe that there is just one, just one, thing that separates film from video. Put 24p video and film clip on tv side by side without any of the additions and film will look like film and video like video.

Could it be the added telecine? Is there added motion blur on film clips?