WANTED: Most "film look" bang for the buck?

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

I've seen 'video-like' low budget movies shot on 16 and 35mm film you wouldn't believe. Most bang for the buck? The iphone, I guess, followed very closely by the T3i and the GH2.

[Brian David Melnyk]

Originally Posted by Vincent Oliver

As a former professional violinist, I too would spend hours practicing every detail and nuance of the music, but at a performance the audience just wants to be entertained. Yes, there would be a small percentage of listeners who would appreciate all the subtleties. Then there are a lot of passages which would be lost due to a loud cough, sneeze or other non scripted noise.Now apply that scenario to a movie/video and I wonder how many TV sets are set up correctly and viewed under ideal conditions. I suspect that many screens will be in a living room with many less than ideal ambient lights on, including sunlight streaming into a room. Will the audience appreciate what you have done, or are we just doing it for other video guys to admire?

funny. i also used to be a professional musician and when we had disastrously horrible nights on stage, often people would say 'wow, that's the best you have ever sounded.' it kinda depressed me, but it also made me realize there were so many other factors involved than if all the notes were played correctly... (like how much alcohol the audience drinks! maybe not a factor for a violinist...)

but i do often hear that argument about the poor quality or set up of TVs/stereos that the work is viewed/heard on as a reason to not be so anal about the project. i disagree! the higher the quality of video/music produced (shot/recorded/color corrected/transcoded/mixed/mastered), the more likely it will translate well to the wide variety of nasty equipment it will be experienced on.

[Vincent Oliver]

Of course you are right Brian, we should always strive for the best quality in any production, regardless of whether the audience has just rolled out of the pub/bar or are watching your movie on a bog standard TV.

I suppose the point I was trying to make, is why try to copy a film look when we have a far more powerful tool at our disposal, i.e. digital video.

[Lee Mullen]

The 'film look/feel' is grossly overrated IMO. Not sure why the OP is getting hysterical about it. We should never lose sight of the very foundation why we are involved in this interest. A few like P Bloom have been fortunate or blessed to be involved directly, but for the rest we are not.

This very site is called Digital VIDEO Info!! Remember that!

[Vincent Oliver]

Originally Posted by Jalan Salur

A few like P Bloom have been fortunate or blessed to be involved directly, but for the rest we are not.

The very fact that you are here on this forum and no doubt you also have a video camera, means you are just as much involved with video as Philip or anyone else.

[Lee Mullen]

Originally Posted by Vincent Oliver

The very fact that you are here on this forum and no doubt you also have a video camera, means you are just as much involved with video as Philip or anyone else.

Hmmm good point

[Jon Fairhurst]

Film offers many pleasing qualities. I think it's totally valid to want to create video that shares those qualities. These include:

* High dynamic range with a soft knee.
* Random (rather than pixelated) noise.
* High resolution, delivered smoothly and gracefully.
* Unique tone curves (from B&W to old Technicolor stock that evolved through the decades to new stock.)
* A dreaminess delivered by proper 24 fps shooting.

But there is no single film look. Fellini, Film Noir, and Star Trek TNG are all film, but all look unique. So the key is to go beyond wanting "film" to wanting it to look like a specific film. And from there, one can customize the look for their personal goals.

[Glen Vandermolen]

OP, this may be your answer - the new Blackmagic Cinema Camera, a 2.5K raw digital camera. It has a sensor slightly smaller than the M43, but bigger than Super-16. It has 13 stops of dynamic range, similar to the RED Epic. It's that wide dynamic range that might give you that elusive film look.
It's the big hit at NAB.
It comes with DaVinci Resolve software and Ultrascope, all for just $3,000! That's about $1,500 worth of free color-grading software.

Blackmagic Design: Blackmagic Cinema Camera

[Vincent Oliver]

Looks like an interesting bit of kit, and the price is good too. Is it possible that we may be seeing a downward trend in camera prices?

[Vincent Oliver]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

Film offers many pleasing qualities. I think it's totally valid to want to create video that shares those qualities..

Of course it is totally valid to want to emulate film, have done so many times myself. What I would like to see is video being pushed beyond this and find its own look. Take for example Landscape paintings, many have copied a Monet, Turner or Constable, but it takes a David Hockney to turn everything on its head to come up with something fresh. To add another element to this, he created many of his Yorkshire landscapes using an iPad.
David Hockney RA: A Bigger Picture - Exhibitions - Royal Academy of Arts

His style may not be to everyone's taste, but it is unique. My neighbor summed up Hockney's latest work as "Matisse meets Disney"

[Geoffrey Cox]

I'm glad no-one's gone on about it so can I just say how much I've grown to hate shallow DoF? It's become like the auto-tune of video.

[Jacques Mersereau]

I feel that the idea of 'bang for buck' is juxtaposed to attaining the film look.
Can anyone 'bang out' a real film? I know I couldn't, and that's what makes it a real worthwhile challenge.
As many here have said, every facet of creating a film takes care and artistry - script, acting, lighting, camera work, image recording, sets, locations, audio, make-up, special effects - and more.

If someone twisted my arm to give you three things that would help get you closer in filmic imaging, I would say a RED camera (& good glass), excellent lighting and haze/diffusion/smoke in the air.

[Charles Papert]

Currently "banging out" a feature, in the sense that we have way too few hours and days in the schedule to make it at the speed of "artistry". But still, it looks good. It just means that we cut corners in every way and "fool" the viewer into thinking it's a larger film than it is. That itself is a certain kind of artistry! Sadly one that I am becoming all too used to.

Regarding the shallow DOF look--I'm shooting the whole film on zooms as we just don't have time for primes, and with the sensitivity of modern cameras, interiors and night exteriors are no longer depending on those anyway. I rarely shoot below T4 except on lenses wider than 25mm and I'm very satisfied with the look, and my focus pullers stand a chance of getting it right the first time. Last night was a night exterior; I shot the master with a Barger Baglight for backlight, a 4K HMI par bounced into a 12x12 and a couple of small tungsten units here and there, nothing over 1K, all at T4 and EI800 and it looked great.

I have long suggested that the best approach to the pursuit of "film look" is to consider it "film feel" instead--simply avoiding the electronic. The biggest struggle since digital arrived was to protect highlights clipping, which was one of the major giveaways. Today's log modes and extended dynamic range have neatly solved that issue that seemed almost insurmountable 10 years ago. It comes down to pure filmmaking now; we've all seen beautiful work done on extremely inexpensive cameras and it should be apparent that the eye and taste of the DP is, more than ever, the critical factor in creating a look that feels filmic.

[Jacques Mersereau]

Having seen your work Charles, I would offer that there's banging it out, and then there's banging it out with a TON of experience and doing great work with the time and budget offered, but still delivering solid - pro images.

What are you shooting it on?

[Charles Papert]

Alexa. That camera is dynamite. Very, very happy with it. Will be using it on season two of "Key and Peele" also.