film look

hmahesh

New member
I shot a feature film in DVCAM format and the master is in
Digi Beta. But I want to give it a softer look and everyone talking
about MagicBullet and Cinelook.
I used Magic bullet and it was a render hog, for a 100 min project
it would take 16 days..So I was wondering if there
are some folks out there who have used other film out
software solution for their digital films to make it look like
film? thanks in advance.

hari
 
While I don't have any suggestions for software to give yoru film a "film" look...
you might consider looking into how much RAM and processing power you're working with.
100 minutes is a LONG LONG piece of video to apply any type of effect to, and if you're using a higher end effect to apply a "film" look to your piece, then it's likely going to take a long time to render.

My advice would be this:

if no-one can suggest a different program, plug-in, or other solution... start rendering and hope it dosen't crash.

However... what is the editing platform for you film?
I am experienced with Avid Media Composer, Media 100, and Final Cut Pro. If you are using any of those, perhaps I can suggest another option.

Good luck.
 
an easy option would be to color grade it the closest you can to imitate film. then export it as 24fps.
 
I think they mean like if you compare the color and "look" of the picture of film and a regular video, there's a difference in contrast/bightness/ etc. etc. etc.
 
Then if it's the case, there are ways to make your image closer to film look at the shoot. (and then make easier the post) :

You can use diffusion filters (make tests)
Most digital cameras have a "filmlike" matrix parameter
You can light in a way it enters the sensitometric caracteristics of film :
have lit blacks ( don't let them too dark), have no overexposed areas (use the white compress/DCC... if necessary)

A great part of the difference beetween film and video look is due to the fact that people don't light the same in both supports : video gives the atractive ability of shooting with only the natural light on the other hand, film is most of the time lit (by a dp), light constructed. Even though you have higgh sensitivity film stocks.

then 24 p helps it (the best being shooting at 24 p better tha transfering afterwards)

I didn't reply this before 'cause it was a post prouction question. But the easier the post is if the shot material already as close as possible from the required result. The post tools shouldn't let anybody think : "Ido whatever I want at the shoot, or bring something "flat" I'll treat in post" I think this is the origin of your problem.

Though it was an old topic, may be hari could react to this debate ?
 
In general what are the "rules" with regard to lighting conditions with film. What circumstances will be good enough to shoot without additional lighting. I don't know much, so is it that even with natural light that lights the scene well enough to the naked eye, film won't pick up all that natural light and you risk shooting darkness?
 
Well, may be it would be a good idea you to ask this question in the "lighting" section, because you would get answers of different advised people there.

What I can quickly say about your questions :

In general what are the "rules" with regard to lighting conditions with film

When we work on film, we make measures as to figure out where the different things on the set will find their place in the sensitometric curve of the film stock ie determine and then light things so they have the luminance on the screen that we want. Constructing a light is not only putting projectors just to light things and then meter the whole stuff as to determine the "average" f stop.

It actually is the same with video. On "big" production, you'd see the dp work nearly the same. The people who don't do this with video wouldn't get a worse result if working on film. It's not a question of support. Remember that before they use video, people would use 8 mm or super 8 film and not care about the lighting construction either.


What circumstances will be good enough to shoot without additional lighting

It depends on the king of shoot you're doing. I'd say there are actually no such conditions, unless ENG in exterior/day locations!

Even on the lowest configurations, you'd often use at least a bounce board, a reflector or a light torch for making the foreground (most often comedians or people's face) a little bit lighter than the background since the eye is attracted by the best lit places, and cinematography is somehow controlling where you want the spectator's eye to look at.

On a good budget film (feature, advert...), you'd have some very powerfull sources (HMI 6 up to 20 KW) as to control this outside light, and not be assled with clouds passing in and out, as well as keeping the light continuity along the day.

in the beetweeen you have EFP TV, documentary or institutionnal productions that would use reflectors, 1200, 2500 and 4 kw HMI on the outsides.

is it that even with natural light that lights the scene well enough to the naked eye, film won't pick up all that natural light and you risk shooting darkness?

Well, yes, somehow. I say "somehow" because what you call "the naked eye" is not necessarly the same for everybody. The eye of someone who wants to do lighting as a job has to be educated, actually.

We have a tendancy to have a look over an whole set as an average look, but what we forget is that eye and brains look at a very close angle at any time, setting focus, lumination and color balance for each place we're looking at, without us to notice. The brains and eye go very fast for setting these controls. (this is why we feel that the eye has a very important depth of field, for instance, though it is totatly untrue, in fact.). And then, from this analysis (that we don't even notice if not educated) of the set we imagine the entire set, as an average look.

The film or video doesn't behave the same. You have one focus point, one f-stop, one color balance for the whole image. So the different parts of the set have to match the camera settings.

Actually the eye accepts very much higher contrast than film or video does.

Basically, all we're talking about here is the same for film or video.

Basically, because on some video cameras, you can set some parameters to get closer to the film look, as I said before, but there are no major differences beetween the supports on this point. Video actually accepts less contrast than film does and is, therefore, more difficult to light. These "filmlook" and other devices try to get video closer to the film's acceptance.

So you have to consider contrast and different parameters differently from what you would see by your eye without any special minding about it.

Tipically, an outside scene could look nice to the eye and at the end look much too contrast on the tape or film. You actually could get much too dark as well as too light places in the frame.

I really would like other people to give you answers to this point, hope I tought you something but keep on searching, 'cause I think the best answer to your question is the one you will build yourself from the different things you will read, hear and experiment.

Good luck !
 
That's a wonderful response Laurent!
I couldn't agree with you more.

On a secondary note... for the original topic of this post...
I just got my new copy of Movie Maker Magazine... and inside is an add for some interesting new software.

#1 - DVFilm Maker is software that "converts interlaced video to 24p progressive-scan without reducing vertical resolution."
It's supposed to give your footage a film-like motion & grain... as well as a warmer color...

#2 - Atlantis is another conversion software... which appears to do the same... but also has the added benefits of transcoding between PAL and NTSC...
not sure if it'll actually do the same work as DVFilm Maker, or if it's just transcoding software... I'm assuming it's both...

Anyways... I have no experience with these products... #1 lists at $95 and #2 lists at $145. Maybe someone on here has already seen them in action... or perhaps one of us will simply purchase one of them in the future and test it out...
Oh, and the cool thing is that both programs work with "virtually" any editing system that uses QuickTime or AVI... which means it should work for either FCP or Avid... and likely Premeire too...
as well, it is a cross-platform installation disk... so you can install it on either mac or pc.

Anyhow... since I found something that may help you out with the film look... beyond your shooting, lighting & color correction techniques... I wanted to let you know.

Also... another little thing I thought of is that if you aren't too attached to the color images you recorded... you might consider desaturating them to B&W... it'll help your image to look even more film-like... but I would suggest color correcting it first in color, and then deciding where to go... because when you color correct in color and then desaturate it, it will preserve the wonderful contrast between lights & darks.
 
For starters...
don't feel dumb... or stupid... there are no stupid questions... only stupid answers...

Ok then... 24p stands for 24 frames/second progressive scan...

As for the rest:

Interlaced video: in video, every frame is recorded twice... first 1/2 of the image is recorded on 1 field, then the other half is recorded on a second field... the two images are stored on 1 frame of video...
thuse, when you have a 30 fps video... it is actually 60 frames... interlaced (merged) to play at 30...

Progressive scan is when an entire frame is recorded in one stop... then the medium advances and the next frame is recorded... nothing is merged or interlaced... the frames simply play in progression... frame 1 then 2...

24p progressive is just a double statement of the progressive recording format... sometimes it's just 24p, or 24 progressive... lol

Anyhow... film is a progressive format... which is why the cinealta HD cam's have the 24p formats... instead of just 30i...

This is also the reason that the DVX and some other newer DV camera's offer a 24p recording option... though they are still recording 60i... they just repeat a few frames now and then, and it is expected that you will later use NLE software to remove those frames using a 3:2 pull-down conversion.
 
:?:
The XL2 and DVX100a both utilize a 2:3 pulldown for standard 24P and 2:3:3:2 pull down for 24P "advanced". From what I gather, the 24P advanced with 2:3:3:2 pull down is better for when you transfer to film right...?
 
The only point to 24P Advanced is to make it easier to remove the pulldown since it doesn't create a frame of video in 60i where you have one field from one progressive-captured frame and the other field from a different progressive-captured frame. Regular 3:2 pulldown would do that.

Both types of pulldown can be removed in post but it's a simpler process with 24P Advanced if your editing software supports it. And if you are going to transfer to film, you need to remove the pulldown. The best thing would be to remove it BEFORE you start editing and cut in a true 24P environment rather than in 60i, where you might throw off the 3:2 pulldown cadence once you make a cut.

Once you cut in 24P and create a 24P master, you can add back a normal 3:2 pulldown and create a separate 60i master.
 
My friend somehow got this "film look" in his final render. He says something about tweaking the colors via "pedestal gain" in After Effects then he did some frame blending...any opinions about this guys? Coz I also really wanna know how to achieve that film look, via post production...

Here is his final output for one of our exercises in school, the language is in native Filipino(tagalog), sorry for that....you may wanna see it yourself. :wink:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-iFy8umA_Qs
 
I think he got this "film look" through great lighting and production design. Pedestal can make richer blacks, but that's just one to way to tweak the image. For all I know, frame blending is an artifact you hope to avoid at all costs.

Instead of thinking about this coveted "film look", why don't you think about the right look for Your story? Be more specific. What style of colors, contrast do you want? Should it be dirty? The better you know, the easier it'd be to come up with answers how to carry it out.

There are so many student and indie films where you can tell how they strived for it to "look good", but they're still boring or mediocre films! Spend another 80 hours on revising your script, storyboards, scrutinizing casting and rehearsals, and that's what'll get you on the road to festivals, and eventually 35mm budgets.

Just my 2cents.
 
It's really true that production and lighting of a film is great but if you are looking for story content and color then it could be more attractive and eye catching according to the need of young generation.For making your film more real and nice feel free to contact us at :- http://arrogantview.com/film-production/
 

Network Sponsors

Back
Top