Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look

[Bill Grant]

Rob,
I'm just trying to point out that the film look isn't as important as people that look for it think. If you know what you're looking for then why ask here? No one knows about the 6D yet, but it will be probably pretty similar to the 5D. I would look up the samples from the black magic camera. The stuff I've seen looks pretty rocking. But you can screw up any shot with bad or inadequate lighting or lens choice no matter the camera. I just don't think there's a "film look" switch you can flip on...
Bill

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Rob Mah

That being said I am avidly seeking the "film" look, or something that looks like big budget hollywood.

The makers of House have used a 5DII for one of their episodes and some time ago I saw Crank high voltage which was filmed with xh-a1's and a set of small handicams, both movies had a different look but both looked like big(ger) budget hollywood films. "filmlook" has a lot to do with how you light a scene, your setting and sound. (good sound you don't "see" but it's something that helps you "feel" your watching a real film.

If you would give a Hollywood filmcrew a GH2 you can bet they will make it look like a big budget movie. A good example is also a short I saw from Philip Bloom some time ago (Hirano San) where 5 other filmmakers used the camera (a af101) for a day and if you look a bit on Vimeo you can find the other films as well on the same topic. Philip's video was the only one that had that "film" look, so same subject, same locations, same camera but different shooters. What's the secret here? The guy behind the camera that knows how to shoot right and how to deal with the camera's limitations and work around it and who knows how to treat in in post. (not talking specifically about the af101 but any dslr camera's for that matter, limitations could be sensor size, cropfactor, moire, aliasing, how the camera deals with highlights etc...)

[Jon Fairhurst]

These last two posts show the importance of finding your own personal film look. If its a street/prison/gang film, a GH2 might be perfect. The sharpness and deep focus can be made to look very gritty. If it's romantic, you can't beat full frame's shallow DOF. A gritty horror flick might be the perfect vehicle for the BMC as you can live with deep focus but might want the freedom to re-color with RAW.

One comment on RAW though... it's not a fix-all. Shoot a RAW still at a family get together and just try to grade it to look like an action/horror/fantasy film. It's not so easy.

But the camera does matter. Just watch a behind-the-scenes video and compare it to the look of the graded final scene. Same scene. Same lighting. One looks like video. The other looks like Hollywood.

But step 1 is to identify your target look and to analyze what you need. Here are a few items to look for:

* DOF. You can always get it with closeups, but do you need it with medium shots? If so, you need a large sensor.

* Color Palette. You can do a lot with grading - especially with a high-quality codec, many bits, and RAW. But it's easier if you use good art direction, costumes, lights and gels. With 8-bit 4:2:0, the scene and your Picture Style is critical.

* Framing. Is it tight, wide, medium, mixed? If it's wide and needs fast lenses, full frame is ideal and the BMC would be a fail. If it's tight, the BMC might be perfect.

* Light levels. If shot under city lights at night, sensitivity is key.

* Dynamic range. If shot in the desert at noon, DR is key.

* Sharpness. Do you want to show every grain of sand? The GH2 is sharp. (Well, maybe a bit too sharp as it can look like video.) Or do you want a dreamier look that doesn't rely on fine detail? The 5D3 is good for this.

* Diffusion. Do you like films with a glow? Consider Glimmerglass filters. (I like the #1 and #2.) Even better: use fog and backlighting.

One cool thing is to create a target scene and to shoot a still with RAW. Play with it to get your perfect look. Didn't get it? Try, try again. Once perfected, review your lens, settings, etc. Now find a video camera that can deliver what you need - as well as lights, gels, makeup, costumes, paint, filters, fog, etc.

[Simon Wood]

The film look probably has more to do with lighting, props, wardrobe, set-design, make-up & location than it does with the actual camera, at the end of the day; never minding a good script and good actors.

As someone mentioned above; professional film crews have managed to pull off great looking movies with 1/3" video cameras. 'Crank 2' was done with the HDV XHA1, and the old Standard Definition DV tape XL1 was used to pull off the very successful '28 Days Later'.

[Michael Wisniewski]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

But the camera does matter. Just watch a behind-the-scenes video and compare it to the look of the graded final scene. Same scene. Same lighting. One looks like video. The other looks like Hollywood.

Jon, actually, your example kinda shows the opposite. If a film crew creates a Hollywood film look, and the behind-the-scenes documentarian ends up with a video look of the same scene - it doesn't make me think, oh heck it must be because of the camera.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Originally Posted by Michael Wisniewski

Jon, actually, your example kinda shows the opposite. If a film crew creates a Hollywood film look, and the behind-the-scenes documentarian ends up with a video look of the same scene - it doesn't make me think, oh heck it must be because of the camera.

Really? The film crew likely uses film, a RED, or equivalent. The BTS camera is likely a small chip camcorder. The film is shot with enough latitude to allow grading. The BTS camera is probably shooting 8-bit 4:2:0 with a lot of sharpening, less dynamic range, etc. Regarding DR, the BTS camera likely shoots with high contrast, blowing out the highlights. The film crew captures the scene flatter so highlight detail is preserved.

While one could shoot BTS with a high-end camera using a small aperture, boosting the contrast and sharpness in camera and in post, it's not so easy to shoot the scene with a small chip digital camera in a way to look like 35mm film. Just look at what hoops they jumped through in the recent Zacuto Challenge to get the iPhone to handle the dynamic range - they took about four stops out of the background image and while it was impressive, it was the clear loser. If you're shooting at noon in the desert, no way will a low DR camera give a Hollywood look.

Anyway, the BTS example takes the scene and lighting out of the equation. We are left with the camera, camera settings, and post. Depending on the camera, there might not be enough image left in post to do the trick.

If you can control the scene, you have a wider choice of cameras. But not all cameras can deliver all target looks.

[Buba Kastorski]

Originally Posted by Bill Grant

Sorry Buba, to me that looks mushy. The handheld shake is too much to handle, and you can really tell that was shot with a lesser image sensor. BUT that is what opinions are for. Getting to see a different perspective. I think the film look is useless without content. How many movies fail because audiences don't like the look? NONE. How many fail because of a weak story. A LOT. Focus on content, shoot with an Iphone if you have to. My Opinion. Not "true"
Bill

Bill, don't need to be sorry :)
this is not even my footage, i don't have GH2, i just grabbed first one from the Youtube with more or less sdof cuz shots that Rob posted are kinda very different, couple FF wide open against smaller sensor + deep aperture, that's loose/loose situation :)
but my friend, i don't even go to what is more important look or content, there is no argument about that, as well as we all know that film has it's distinctive look, regardless of color correction scheme, and that was Rob's question, is sdof possible on M4/3 - yes it is, not as shallow as FF f/1.2, but that's given :)

Originally Posted by Rob Mah

I've been seeking a camera that will provide me film like footage for years now, and it looks like the 6D might just do that for me.

Rob, i hear you, i was there, for many years,
take my advice, get RED, today R1MX in good condition is cheaper than FS700, you'll be happy,
at least with the look, i promise.

[Buba Kastorski]

Originally Posted by Buba Kastorski

take my advice, get RED

And if you ever thought about that, now is a time :)

[Rob Mah]

Love to go for the RED but I simply can't afford that. :-)

To inform you all after a lot of further research and educating, yes, lighting, grading and what not are important, but I already knew most of that.

There are two factors that I have discovered determine, to a most reasonable extent, how to control and also get the look you want:

1) Sensor size + quality
2) Lens

Each lens you use will almost always swing the look in a different manner. I already knew this but did not know the extent to which the lens will completely alter the way a scene looks.

That being said I have basically found that the Alpha a99 + a specific lens I have painstakingly found that is alpha mount should give me the results I want. And for video + full frame under 3k I don't think anything beats the a99.

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Rob Mah

That being said I have basically found that the Alpha a99 + a specific lens I have painstakingly found that is alpha mount should give me the results I want. And for video + full frame under 3k I don't think anything beats the a99.

provided you don't care about the aliasing & moire that is evident in all the A99 clips that I have seen. It's a nice camera & the XLR add-on is a nice option but the video quality isn't up to 5D3 standard.

[Rob Mah]

Nah, the moire and aliasing is totally overblown. Video quality is on par with MK3 as far as I have seen not to mention a superior 1080p 60fps option which provides slow mo at full res.

This is a great example of some of the spectacular footage you can get with this:

Mr. Stekovics (Shot with Sony A99) on Vimeo

No color correction, audio through the camera via XLR.

Even this author complains of moire and aliasing and I see none at all. Mind you I am not focused on nit picking irrelevant details - 99.9% of the visible audience won't notice these things so it's a moot point.

[Noa Put]

Clever of Canon, probably deliberately crippling the 6d in the video department so it doesn't affect the sales of it's bigger full frame brother. Really disappointing, on their site it says for the 6d: "the benefits of a Full-Frame sensor provides stunning performance and creative flexibility. " You sure need to be flexible not to get all that moire and aliasing in your image. It looks like it has the same low light capabilities like its bigger FF brother but if you want the real thing you need to cough up another 1000 euros.