Define/Quantify Film Look

John Jay · March 30th, 2005, 08:44 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Ced : ok. then, why doesn´t one of you experts in filming or creating a film look put up an aprox. 3 min short where you can show one " before and after" film look (of course after using any software , vegas, premiere , ...)?
Because words are words, and an image is an image.

That´s just a suggestion, and i think will help many people to understand the famous "film look". -->>>

This has already been done by an expert.

Check out the short film "Camera" by David Cronenberg

K. Forman · March 30th, 2005, 09:37 AM

The best film I have seen in years, was What Dreams May Come. I'm not sure if it was shot digitally, or on film, but I suspect it was film. What made it film for me, was the color saturation, which is very hard to get with video... at least for me. For the same reason, I prefer Quicktime over Windows Media.

Alex Ced · March 30th, 2005, 10:07 AM

where can i find -buy- it?

I searched anf find a "Bridge Short Film and Video Collection"

at http://www.microcinema.com/programResult.php?program_id=268

but, where can i get it?

thanks.

John Jay · March 31st, 2005, 01:33 PM

Alex

Contact David Cronenberg through the approved websites and they will steer you to a convenient purchase point

Alex Ced · March 31st, 2005, 03:15 PM

thanks a lot for your help, John.

John Jay · April 1st, 2005, 06:06 AM

Alex

I found a real player version of it here

http://www.filmreferencelibrary.ca/index.asp?navid=92&layid=82&csid2=15&csid=299

clik the play video box

Still its good to get a DVD version for better reference

Juan Parra · April 1st, 2005, 11:45 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by John Jay : Alex

I found a real player version of it here

http://www.filmreferencelibrary.ca/index.asp?navid=92&layid=82&csid2=15&csid=299

clik the play video box
Still its good to get a DVD version for better reference -->>>

Interesting...

On the same site there is a short called 24fps

http://www.filmreferencelibrary.ca/i...d2=56&csid=299

Depending on your point of view, and how this short reaches you.
It might have something to do with this thread (somehow).

Dave Ferdinand · April 1st, 2005, 06:06 PM

There's another thing that helps giving video a 'filmic' look, I just remembered. That's the bloom, or glow you get on overexposed areas.

Also, another thing was, like Simon pointed out, the reducing of video sharpeness, or edge enhanced as it's called.

Anyway, I had done some tests using my old JVC DVL-357 and remember got some good results using just Premiere 6.

I'll post them here if I manage to find them if anybody's interested. They're just still shots, so the 24p factor (which is IMO the most important to achieve the filmic look) won't be very noticeable, but it's better than nothing! :)

Alex Ced · April 1st, 2005, 08:00 PM

those films, specially the "camera" one, are beautiful.

Of course, I would like to get the dvd.

You can duplicate a video in premiere and give a gaussian blurr to video 2 and decrease the opacity in the video 1 (in premiere timeline) and you can get beautiful glows... you can play with the gaussian blur and the opacity. Vegas 5.0 also can help you with its sony glow.

O.K., I hope this helps anybody here.
http://apr.imghost.us/lfydp.jpg

Dave Ferdinand · April 1st, 2005, 09:42 PM

That image looks nice.

It's a shame the movies are real player only. I refuse to install it on my machine!

Anyway, here is the little test I talked about. Taking into account it was shot using a consumer camera, it's not too bad.

http://www.geocities.com/headlesspuppy/stuff/compare1.jpg

But of course, film without motion isn't really the same thing...

Dan Diaconu · April 2nd, 2005, 12:56 AM

It has been mentioned several times under "different response to light", "highlights blown out" "crushed blacks" and such but had not been nailed down. During a side by side (actually inter cut) Dalsa and Panaflex Gold footage that was projected on a (relatively small ) large screen, the Panavision representative was giving (in the second part) indications as which shot was film and which one was CMOS.
After the first part (followed by debates) he was smiling. Two cameras sid by side, same light, same subjects, same "dolly"....
He pointed out that film's logarithmic response to light is the only "offender" that allows a lot more light on highlights before washing out details (same for shadows) as opposed to CMOS linear response. They also had to make a "look up" table when footage originated from CMOS was printed to film.
So.. it is still analog vs. digital and on a physiological level, is the "magic" created by film's response vs. precise science of digital imaging. Just some facts and my 2c.

Glenn Chan · April 2nd, 2005, 02:13 AM

Dan, to expand on your point, check out:
http://freespace.virgin.net/shaw.clan/dpviper35mm.html

It shows comparisons between the Viper (tweaked) and 35mm film.

Keep in mind that the Viper is a very high-end camera, better than many of the other video cameras available today.

Simon Wyndham · April 2nd, 2005, 02:53 AM

Be careful of bloom. I tend to associate that kind of look with video tring to look like film. The Bourne Supremacy for example has no glow.

Regarding edge enhancement, note that I mentioned reducing the edge enhancement, not softening. :-) Although reducing or eliminating edge enhancement makes the picture look softer, what you are doing is in fact just getting rid of artefacts that aren't there in reality/ In other words you will be seeing the natural edges. Unfortunately in most consumer cams it is impossible to eilimate edge enhancement.

For example the old XM1 (GL1) just softened the picture when the detail level was turned down. The black edge enhancement line width stayed the same no matter what the setting.

Because edge enhancement is artificial to begin with, if you can turn off the edge enhancement on your camera, then do so. You can always sharpen it up a bit in post. This is what many film transfer houses such as Swiss Effects do.

Dan Diaconu · April 2nd, 2005, 04:22 AM

Thank you Glen, you "took the words out of my mouth"
Simon, for video (camcorders starting with VHS, VHS-C, 8, HI8 and now DV) if
1 the natural resolution of film WAS NEVER THERE to begin with, and
2 the DOF was never there (size of CCD)

if we take away the "sharpness enhancement... what's left?
A BEAUTIFULL pastel from the 17th century... or close.
Argh.... not even that:
the auto or manual white balance does not know anything but proportional RGB so it's going to be blu-ish red-ish-pink-ish all together. I give up. But before I do:

Dominic I drink to your health. I thought I will be burned at stake alone for mho on 24p.

Dave Ferdinand · April 2nd, 2005, 01:35 PM

Dan, you are probably aiming too high. I think the idea is to walk towards the film look, ie, find a way to make video footage look more like it was shot using film. We can't really expect it to look _exactly_ like film. I'd be happy if what I work with doesn't scream 'video'.

I think the link Glenn posted show a very satisfying example of what we could achieve with video - Those results would make most people proud of their footage!

March 30th, 2005, 08:44 AM	#31
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	Re: a film look? <<<-- Originally posted by Alex Ced : ok. then, why doesn´t one of you experts in filming or creating a film look put up an aprox. 3 min short where you can show one " before and after" film look (of course after using any software , vegas, premiere , ...)? Because words are words, and an image is an image. That´s just a suggestion, and i think will help many people to understand the famous "film look". -->>> This has already been done by an expert. Check out the short film "Camera" by David Cronenberg __________________ John Jay Beware *PLUGGER-BYTES*

March 30th, 2005, 09:37 AM	#32
K. Forman Capt. Quirk Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Middle of the woods in Georgia Posts: 3,596	The best film I have seen in years, was What Dreams May Come. I'm not sure if it was shot digitally, or on film, but I suspect it was film. What made it film for me, was the color saturation, which is very hard to get with video... at least for me. For the same reason, I prefer Quicktime over Windows Media. __________________ www.SmokeWagonLeather.us

March 30th, 2005, 10:07 AM	#33
Alex Ced New Boot Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: PANAMA Posts: 11	thanks John Jay where can i find -buy- it? I searched anf find a "Bridge Short Film and Video Collection" at http://www.microcinema.com/programResult.php?program_id=268 but, where can i get it? thanks. __________________ Nothing will stop me to reach my goal

March 31st, 2005, 01:33 PM	#34
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	Alex Contact David Cronenberg through the approved websites and they will steer you to a convenient purchase point __________________ John Jay Beware *PLUGGER-BYTES*

March 31st, 2005, 03:15 PM	#35
Alex Ced New Boot Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: PANAMA Posts: 11	thanks thanks a lot for your help, John. __________________ Nothing will stop me to reach my goal

April 1st, 2005, 06:06 AM	#36
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	STOP PRESS Alex I found a real player version of it here http://www.filmreferencelibrary.ca/index.asp?navid=92&layid=82&csid2=15&csid=299 clik the play video box Still its good to get a DVD version for better reference __________________ John Jay Beware *PLUGGER-BYTES*

April 1st, 2005, 11:45 AM	#37
Juan Parra Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 110	Re: STOP PRESS <<<-- Originally posted by John Jay : Alex I found a real player version of it here http://www.filmreferencelibrary.ca/index.asp?navid=92&layid=82&csid2=15&csid=299 clik the play video box Still its good to get a DVD version for better reference -->>> Interesting... On the same site there is a short called 24fps http://www.filmreferencelibrary.ca/i...d2=56&csid=299 Depending on your point of view, and how this short reaches you. It might have something to do with this thread (somehow). __________________ Juan Parra

April 1st, 2005, 06:06 PM	#38
Dave Ferdinand Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 359	There's another thing that helps giving video a 'filmic' look, I just remembered. That's the bloom, or glow you get on overexposed areas. Also, another thing was, like Simon pointed out, the reducing of video sharpeness, or edge enhanced as it's called. Anyway, I had done some tests using my old JVC DVL-357 and remember got some good results using just Premiere 6. I'll post them here if I manage to find them if anybody's interested. They're just still shots, so the 24p factor (which is IMO the most important to achieve the filmic look) won't be very noticeable, but it's better than nothing! :)

April 1st, 2005, 08:00 PM	#39
Alex Ced New Boot Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: PANAMA Posts: 11	beautiful those films, specially the "camera" one, are beautiful. Of course, I would like to get the dvd. You can duplicate a video in premiere and give a gaussian blurr to video 2 and decrease the opacity in the video 1 (in premiere timeline) and you can get beautiful glows... you can play with the gaussian blur and the opacity. Vegas 5.0 also can help you with its sony glow. O.K., I hope this helps anybody here. http://apr.imghost.us/lfydp.jpg __________________ Nothing will stop me to reach my goal

April 1st, 2005, 09:42 PM	#40
Dave Ferdinand Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 359	That image looks nice. It's a shame the movies are real player only. I refuse to install it on my machine! Anyway, here is the little test I talked about. Taking into account it was shot using a consumer camera, it's not too bad. http://www.geocities.com/headlesspuppy/stuff/compare1.jpg But of course, film without motion isn't really the same thing...

April 2nd, 2005, 12:56 AM	#41
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	It has been mentioned several times under "different response to light", "highlights blown out" "crushed blacks" and such but had not been nailed down. During a side by side (actually inter cut) Dalsa and Panaflex Gold footage that was projected on a (relatively small ) large screen, the Panavision representative was giving (in the second part) indications as which shot was film and which one was CMOS. After the first part (followed by debates) he was smiling. Two cameras sid by side, same light, same subjects, same "dolly".... He pointed out that film's logarithmic response to light is the only "offender" that allows a lot more light on highlights before washing out details (same for shadows) as opposed to CMOS linear response. They also had to make a "look up" table when footage originated from CMOS was printed to film. So.. it is still analog vs. digital and on a physiological level, is the "magic" created by film's response vs. precise science of digital imaging. Just some facts and my 2c.

April 2nd, 2005, 02:13 AM	#42
Glenn Chan Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 4,750	Dan, to expand on your point, check out: http://freespace.virgin.net/shaw.clan/dpviper35mm.html It shows comparisons between the Viper (tweaked) and 35mm film. Keep in mind that the Viper is a very high-end camera, better than many of the other video cameras available today.

April 2nd, 2005, 02:53 AM	#43
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	Be careful of bloom. I tend to associate that kind of look with video tring to look like film. The Bourne Supremacy for example has no glow. Regarding edge enhancement, note that I mentioned reducing the edge enhancement, not softening. :-) Although reducing or eliminating edge enhancement makes the picture look softer, what you are doing is in fact just getting rid of artefacts that aren't there in reality/ In other words you will be seeing the natural edges. Unfortunately in most consumer cams it is impossible to eilimate edge enhancement. For example the old XM1 (GL1) just softened the picture when the detail level was turned down. The black edge enhancement line width stayed the same no matter what the setting. Because edge enhancement is artificial to begin with, if you can turn off the edge enhancement on your camera, then do so. You can always sharpen it up a bit in post. This is what many film transfer houses such as Swiss Effects do.

April 2nd, 2005, 04:22 AM	#44
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	Thank you Glen, you "took the words out of my mouth" Simon, for video (camcorders starting with VHS, VHS-C, 8, HI8 and now DV) if 1 the natural resolution of film WAS NEVER THERE to begin with, and 2 the DOF was never there (size of CCD) if we take away the "sharpness enhancement... what's left? A BEAUTIFULL pastel from the 17th century... or close. Argh.... not even that: the auto or manual white balance does not know anything but proportional RGB so it's going to be blu-ish red-ish-pink-ish all together. I give up. But before I do: Dominic I drink to your health. I thought I will be burned at stake alone for mho on 24p.

April 2nd, 2005, 01:35 PM	#45
Dave Ferdinand Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 359	Dan, you are probably aiming too high. I think the idea is to walk towards the film look, ie, find a way to make video footage look more like it was shot using film. We can't really expect it to look _exactly_ like film. I'd be happy if what I work with doesn't scream 'video'. I think the link Glenn posted show a very satisfying example of what we could achieve with video - Those results would make most people proud of their footage!