What is Film-Look

[akkers]

I have talked to a lot of people and had many discussions in various forums as to what really defines a film-look.

Some say its the depth of field, some say its the colour grading, others say its 24p etc. I am not convinced and believe that there is that defining point which separates film from video. I just cannot get to the bottom of it.

If you shoot 24p with all the shallow depth and all that on a DSLR and play it on a TV it still looks like video. Why?

You can have a scene from a movie (say a static flat landscape shot) and you know instantly its a movie/film. Yet you can have the same shot from a video source and it looks video.

So what is that key element that makes footage on TV look like film?

[hamilton accie]

Which tv do you have ? do you see this problem on only one tv or any tv ?

[ndjamena]

This may be destroying the magic, but one's a digitisation of light, the other's a digitisation of a little piece of coloured plastic. I'm not sure why you think depth of field or any other concepts come into it. There's no way a picture get's squished onto a tiny little square of plastic in an analogue state and comes out of it unscathed.

[LMotlow]

Are you talking about (a) the look of motion picture film shot with a camera onto emulsion-based (analog) media? Or (b) Video shot with a digital camera and digitized into a data-compressed format with digital rounding of color/luma values and further compressed into a format that loses 50% or so of the original visual elements? Or are you talking about (C) an original film-based (a) that has been digitized and processed/compressed into (b)?

If you sit in a movie theater and view a film-based movie through a properly configured lens and projector onto a reflective surface, and then watch a digital version of that same movie projected via digital equipment, the two versions of the movie will not look exactly alike. Film has no pixels; it is a stream of continuous-tone images with a wider contrast range than digital video and no down-scaling of comparatively unlimited color values into rounded digital numbers. Lossy compression, digital rounding, and artificial arrangement of continuous-tone data into a structure of blocks of pixels is the major difference between digital video and film. Another major difference is that while film has its visual virtues, it is not as "sharp" as digital video. Film itself has grain, and the grain contains finer differences in the minutiae of visual data -- that is, film has less edge accutance than digital video but has finer resolution. Another major difference between film and digital video is that film has less trouble representing motion (that is, analog film doesn't have to "wait" for a processor to process motion). The depth of field issue is one that has been emulated in digital video through various means in the camera. Grain (noise) is often added to digital video to make it look like film and give color gradations a smoother film-like appearance. Film is better able to record low-density scenes (fog, rain, night scenes). And film has no digital or compression artifacts.

Having grown up watching movies in movie houses since I was old enough to walk, one of my biggest disappointments during the past few years was having to watch movies processed and projected digitally. Digital video IMO is more convenient, but not "better". It's a case in which less is not more.

[LigH.de]

With some pessimism, it may mean the look of norm conversions to let film (photographed with 24 fps) play on CRT TV sets (e.g. NTSC with 29.97 ~ 30 fps). So, either the flickering of non-blended telecine, or the ghosting of blended conversions, or the artifical motions of interpolated frames...

[newpball]

I have talked to a lot of people and had many discussions in various forums as to what really defines a film-look.

The 24p is a factor, footage shot at 24p has a distinct look furthermore film has a very different light sensitivity curve than video
.

[poisondeathray]

Yes all the factors mentioned above contribute to the "filmic" look. It's not a single thing.

The light sensitivity is a big one as well. It instantly separates film or high end digital from consumer video. Your consumer DSLR - and most consumer level cameras - have a very limited *usable* dynamic range compared to film , especially when recording to internal media (high compression) very poor shadow detail . Ohh you will see ardent DSLR defenders point to tests that show "x" stops of dynamic range. But I assure you, there is a huge difference between usable dynamic range and what you can measure with low level tests

Digital cinema cameras have much higher range and record to log formats at higher bit depths , and often raw. They preserve a much higher level of detail in shadows and brights. Sure DSLR fans record "flat" in attempt to maintain flexibility but when you do this in compressed 8bit recording, as soon as you grade it - it will turn to mush

Much of the "filmic" look in movies shot on film - is actually in the grading from the colorist. Have you seen ungraded film? It looks absolutely nothing like you see in the cinema. It's the high bit depth from film scanning that allows the colorist the flexibility to achieve the final look. It cannot be done with 8bit acquisition.

The other important aspect is lighting, lighting , lighting . A lot of work goes into lighting for the film look . You can't just point and shoot - even with real film



Can you distinguish between any recent big budget movies that have been shot on "video"? It's getting harder and harder to distinguish. Basically >80% of all recent large studio theatrical releases use Arri Alexa, Red (Epic or Dragon), Sony F65 - all digital workflows. They can be graded and treated in post production to look very film like. Similarly, you can make movies shot on film look a lot like video, by degraining, reducing the dynamic range

[Cornucopia]

It isn't ONE thing, it is a number of things combined that give it that look:
1. Framerate & shutter: 24p with equivalent of Global Shutter
2. Light sensitivity curve & dynamic range: Medium Dynamic Range with log curve
3. Resolution & Granularity: 4k or greater, pixels not all regular squares
4. Sensor size: 35mm+ size gives shallow Depth of Field with "normal" lens range & distances
5. Higher precision with light & color levels: no banding (unless processed that way intentionally)

This can be arrived at with analog or digital means.

I hate to break it to you, but you've probably already have been "convinced" without even realizing it. Video cameras that satisfy those and a few other requirements already exist and have been in use for a while: they're known as Digital eCinema cameras (such as the ones pdr mentioned). Video cams are tiered in their capabilities and it is that top capability which you are asking about. If you are shown something done by a workflow based on a device of lesser capability, you may not know why, but you'd probably notice the difference when one (or more) of those elements I mentioned are not fulfilled. And it's not always about realism, as 24p isn't the most realistic framerate to your eyes. It just has a certain cache due to conditioning.

Scott

[hanshotfirst1138]

Are you talking about (a) the look of motion picture film shot with a camera onto emulsion-based (analog) media? Or (b) Video shot with a digital camera and digitized into a data-compressed format with digital rounding of color/luma values and further compressed into a format that loses 50% or so of the original visual elements? Or are you talking about (C) an original film-based (a) that has been digitized and processed/compressed into (b)?

If you sit in a movie theater and view a film-based movie through a properly configured lens and projector onto a reflective surface, and then watch a digital version of that same movie projected via digital equipment, the two versions of the movie will not look exactly alike. Film has no pixels; it is a stream of continuous-tone images with a wider contrast range than digital video and no down-scaling of comparatively unlimited color values into rounded digital numbers. Lossy compression, digital rounding, and artificial arrangement of continuous-tone data into a structure of blocks of pixels is the major difference between digital video and film. Another major difference is that while film has its visual virtues, it is not as "sharp" as digital video. Film itself has grain, and the grain contains finer differences in the minutiae of visual data -- that is, film has less edge accutance than digital video but has finer resolution. Another major difference between film and digital video is that film has less trouble representing motion (that is, analog film doesn't have to "wait" for a processor to process motion). The depth of field issue is one that has been emulated in digital video through various means in the camera. Grain (noise) is often added to digital video to make it look like film and give color gradations a smoother film-like appearance. Film is better able to record low-density scenes (fog, rain, night scenes). And film has no digital or compression artifacts.

Having grown up watching movies in movie houses since I was old enough to walk, one of my biggest disappointments during the past few years was having to watch movies processed and projected digitally. Digital video IMO is more convenient, but not "better". It's a case in which less is not more.

I kind of agree with this. To be honest, though I know that the screen is bigger and I'm objectively being shown more resolution than I am at home, I find myself waiting for the Blu-ray more and more frequently because I just don't feel like the ticket price is worth the difference now that both formats are digital in the DCP age, especially with audiences behaving foolishly nowadays. I've had very few chances to see anything in 35mm recently, but I've relished them. Got to see a 35mm print of Seven Samurai, it was a real privilege.

That said, there's still a lot of "filmizing" going on, and I've seen some digital presentations which do an excellent job of emulating it.

[akkers]

Its all confusing to me. I have seen some wedding videos shot on DLSR that have that smooth film-look yet I have not seen anyone produce anything like that produced locally from anyone I know. Ok so what is the process to get 24p DLSR footage to look similar to film?

In fact when movies are encoded from 24p to 30i (or 25i) for tv or DVD consumption why dont they lose that film-look? The movies we see broadcast on TV, are they transmitted in 30i (or 25i in PAL) or do they still have a 24p flag?

[smrpix]

Ok so what is the process to get 24p DLSR footage to look similar to film?

As has been stated or implied earlier -- good lenses, appropriate camera support, proper exposure, appropriately balanced lighting, careful color-correction, possible addition of grain and other effects.

To my eye, Nikon DSLRs produce an image remarkably similar to early 80's 16mm stock (Eastman 7291) as-is.

[newpball]

Ok so what is the process to get 24p DLSR footage to look similar to film?

Ok, so what is the process to make a Volkswagen drive like a Ferrari?

The true answer is you cannot!

Only high end digital video cameras can approach a film look. First of all you need a pretty large sensor to accurately capture the darker areas, the sensors light sensitivity scale must look more like a logarithmic than a linear scale. You need a larger color space and the dynamic range must be 10 bit. You also need 4k resolution and some would argue even more.

[Cornucopia]

When movies are encoded to 25i, they are usually done so with a slight speedup and a 2:2 pulldown, which maintains the progressive image's integrity (in spirit, if not in fact), but it doesn't change anything about how the motion was sampled. A 24FPS to 25FPS shift is only a 4% change. This will not look like native 25i or 50p as those change images every 20msec, instead of 24p's 41.66msec or 25p's 40msec.

24p->30i does a more convoluted thing with the 3:2 pulldown (though it does NOT include a speedup - in fact, it does a 0.1% slowdown), but the effects are nearly the same (unfortunately, however, with the addition of judder). Again, it is not changing (much) the sampling of motion. Native 30i or 60i changes images every 16.68msec vs. 24p's 41.66msec or 30p's 33.36msec.

Notice that converting "movies" to "video" has only changed the framerate, and (somewhat) the resolution. It has done nothing to change the depth of field & bokeh gained from using large sensors, nor has it changed (much) the dynamic range (which was already tone-map reduced to prep it for theatre distribution). The precision & colorspace & subsampling has changed a small amount, but unless you looked at them side by side, you might not notice the difference. Banding might be slightly noticeable, but usually only on non-calibrated displays or other times where the encoded levels don't stay as intended (extra high brightness levels) or if the encoding wasn't given dithering with sufficient bitrate.

The thing that IMO makes the MOST difference, beside the obvious framerate constraints, is the SensorSize/DynamicRange. If you light things correctly, master your panning & movement, and you don't ruin your image through subsampling & compression, one can easily use a DSLR in the capacity of a 2nd or 3rd cam on a cinema shoot. In fact, it's done all the time. You can also, through judicious lighting and DOF optical adapters, use a broadcast quality video camera (which has capability for 24p and knee/shoulder adjustment) for a similar purpose. Also done quite a lot.

4k is NOT always necessary, as neither 35mm release prints nor 16mm answer prints have even that capability (35mm negs & answer prints and 65/70mm are another matter). It doesn't HURT to have 4k to start with, though, but not at the expense of those other things. Existing color gamut, if it were able to be displayed correctly and fully, is probably also sufficient for most people's perception. Problem is it ISN'T displayed correctly/fully very often, if at all. Dynamic range needs to be (at least) 10STOPS in addition to just being 10bit (or more). One deals with the # of steps in a staircase, the other deals with how large those steps are.

Scott

[akkers]

Thanks to all for the input.
I have just been watching some indian channels. They have the very bright colourful dramas shot on HD video cams being brodcast on channels such as StartPlus. Then you have the equally bright and colourful indian movies broadcast on ZeeMovies for example. Now I could not notice much difference in terms of colour grading ect. Looking carefully, what I did notice was that in the video dramas the motion looks natural, more realistic. However, in the movies the motion is not quite so realistic and has that mystique look about it. Maybe its this that separates video from movies.

So when professional movie makers shoot on DSLRs in 24p using special lenses and edit to colour-grade etc, is there another step? Because I have not seen 24p footage (even with Bokeh) look anything like film.

So my question is how do you get 24p DSLR footage to display motion like film when shwon as 25i (or 30i)?

[newpball]

I have just been watching some indian channels. They have the very bright colourful dramas shot on HD video cams being brodcast on channels such as StartPlus. Then you have the equally bright and colourful indian movies broadcast on ZeeMovies for example. Now I could not notice much difference in terms of colour grading ect. Looking carefully, what I did notice was that in the video dramas the motion looks natural, more realistic. However, in the movies the motion is not quite so realistic and has that mystique look about it. Maybe its this that separates video from movies.

The question, I am sure on the tip of everybody's tongue, is how did you view these videos/movies (e.g. resolution, CODEC, streaming etc) and on what kind of monitor?

So my question is how do you get 24p DSLR footage to display motion like film when shwon as 25i (or 30i)?

See the answers above, short answer is you can't!

Somehow I suspect that answer is not satisfactory to you.

By the way typically 24p is slowed down to 25p and then interlaced for PAL. For NTCS it is a little bit more complicated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine#2:3_pulldown

[budwzr]

The film look is like a pair of faded Levi's, whereas video is more like new designer jeans.

Or an old dollar bill compared to a new crisp one.

Film look is theatrical and smokey, video looks like TV news footage.

[Cornucopia]

No, budwzr, film/cinema is like chess and video is like checkers.

Scott

[akkers]

I was viewing it on LED and LCD tvs. But I have seen similar results with old CRT TVs as well.

I take all your points above. But referring to above indians dramas and movies are alike and are crips dollar bills (or Rupee notes). But they look different.

Just last night I was skipping through channels last night and saw a movie scene. It was a static landscape shot with no field of depth (high F stop) - just a flat open static landscape shot. But I instantly knew it was film and not video; and it had nothing to do with colours. I can shoot a similar scene on a DSLR and play it on TV in 24p or 25p or 25i but it will never that film look.

So my argument is that the key factor is motion of the film-originated footage. How do they achieve that. Is it the slow down to 25i or the 2:3 pull down?

[Skiller]

Just to correct this misinformation, when 24p is played back at 25 fps psF (progressive segmented Frame) the process is a speedup not down. But I guarantee, it's impossible tell apart speedup and native 24p because the difference is too tiny. You may notice the speedup on the audio though.

[poisondeathray]

Just last night I was skipping through channels last night and saw a movie scene. It was a static landscape shot with no field of depth (high F stop) - just a flat open static landscape shot. But I instantly knew it was film and not video; and it had nothing to do with colours. I can shoot a similar scene on a DSLR and play it on TV in 24p or 25p or 25i but it will never that film look.

So my argument is that the key factor is motion of the film-originated footage. How do they achieve that. Is it the slow down to 25i or the 2:3 pull down?

What kind of logic is that? A "static" landscape shot doesn't have motion (unless you have something moving in the background like monkey or something)

So it's not the motion characteristics in your example, it's something else. Unless you're not describing the shot correctly

[Cornucopia]

@akkers, I suspect what you are noticing is the Dynamic Range/Contrast.

But somehow, I don't think that answer will satisfy you.

Scott

[Seeker47]

The film look is like a pair of faded Levi's, whereas video is more like new designer jeans.

Or an old dollar bill compared to a new crisp one.

Film look is theatrical and smokey, video looks like TV news footage.

Interesting discussion with this thread.

Some have said (and I agree) that -- at its best -- film has poetic and dreamlike qualities that video is still extremely hard-pressed to capture or emulate. For me, the vast majority of video that I've seen over the past several decades does indeed have that documentary or tv news look that is, well, more "real", as well as more pedestrian, and definitely not much like film. That said, if you've watched things like "The Knick" on Starz, shot by Soderbergh on Red Dragon, you will clearly see that the frontiers of what video can achieve have been expanding tremendously, and much of this qualitative difference has been steadily diminishing. There is a well-regarded documentary, "Side by Side" (2012), that covers this subject. You can probably get it from Netflix, or it may turn up on cable.

Here is an article you might find of interest, which crosses paths with this subject.

http://deadline.com/2014/09/quentin-tarantino-new-beverly-cinema-takes-over-theater-830233/

also these:

http://www.laweekly.com/publicspectacle/2014/09/05/quentin-tarantino-on-his-new-role-r...beverly-cinema


http://www.laweekly.com/2012-04-12/film-tv/35-mm-film-digital-Hollywood/


New Beverly is one of just a couple surviving repertory theaters in L.A. (From what I've heard, there are hardly any left in NYC, either. It is -- unfortunately -- a dying format.) Tarantino is now in a small minority of film purists or film diehards, among directors. (Too bad I don't like most of his work.) But you can count me among the minority that is none too pleased by the total dominance of digital cinema projection in theaters now, and the near extinction of projected film. Something of great value is being lost.

[budwzr]

Quentin Tarantino seems to have lost his mojo. I watched "Django" recently. It grabbed my interest right away with the usual Tarantino Style, but soon went campy. I lost interest and quit on it about halfway.

I guess each new generation of movie watchers will get used to digital in time and never miss film. It's all about what you're used to growing up.

Probably one day in the future, Big Macs will be squeezed from a tube into your mouth. And the older folks will pine for a real hamburger, hehehe.

[Cornucopia]

We should all be so mojo-less, and unsuccessful.

Scott

[budwzr]

We should all be so mojo-less, and unsuccessful.

Scott

True that. But did you like Django?

[Cornucopia]

Quite! It got much better toward the end (which you seemed to miss out on).

Scott

[budwzr]

Ok. I'll watch it all the way.

[akkers]

Perhaps if video had been invented first then film would have never had a chance of being invented and accepted by the masses.

[hanshotfirst1138]

See the answers above, short answer is you can't!

Somehow I suspect that answer is not satisfactory to you.

By the way typically 24p is slowed down to 25p and then interlaced for PAL. For NTCS it is a little bit more complicated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine#2:3_pulldown

Doesn't the number of fields in NTSC pulldown basically make the image into 30 FPS?

Just to correct this misinformation, when 24p is played back at 25 fps psF (progressive segmented Frame) the process is a speedup not down. But I guarantee, it's impossible tell apart speedup and native 24p because the difference is too tiny. You may notice the speedup on the audio though.

You will, however, notice that the runtime is actually a little bit shorter as a result of the speedup. I believe it's 4%? As you point out, I have heard a number of people complain about PAL speedup audio, however.

I guess each new generation of movie watchers will get used to digital in time and never miss film. It's all about what you're used to growing up.

That's what I think too, sadly. The next generation are begin taught on digital (I certainly was), and most will probably be largely disinterested in film.

There is a well-regarded documentary, "Side by Side" (2012), that covers this subject. You can probably get it from Netflix, or it may turn up on cable.

Here is an article you might find of interest, which crosses paths with this subject.

http://deadline.com/2014/09/quentin-tarantino-new-beverly-cinema-takes-over-theater-830233/

also these:

http://www.laweekly.com/publicspectacle/2014/09/05/quentin-tarantino-on-his-new-role-r...beverly-cinema


http://www.laweekly.com/2012-04-12/film-tv/35-mm-film-digital-Hollywood/


New Beverly is one of just a couple surviving repertory theaters in L.A. (From what I've heard, there are hardly any left in NYC, either. It is -- unfortunately -- a dying format.) Tarantino is now in a small minority of film purists or film diehards, among directors. (Too bad I don't like most of his work.) But you can count me among the minority that is none too pleased by the total dominance of digital cinema projection in theaters now, and the near extinction of projected film. Something of great value is being lost.

I agree completely about the loss. I think that for a while, everyone's ideal solution was that the two exist side-by-side, but the fact is that that's no longer financially feasible, assuming it ever was. Tarantino is independently wealthy and can afford to have his own prints made and keep the cinema running, and there are still a handful of directors fighting for film, but while they may have the clout to shoot film and have a handful of prints made, it's foolish to think that they can secure its future. Even IMAX are going to phase out their few remaining 70mm projectors for their new laser systems shortly. I got the chance to see Interstellar in that format, it was stunning. I've never forgiven myself for missing Nolan's last two films in it. Interstellar got an early release in 35mm, 70mm, and IMAX 70mm, and when I went to the official website, most of the cinemas listed which we supposed to be showing the 35mm prints weren't. Luckily, an IMAX nearby was. I have a feeling it's celluloid's last stand though. Netflix has Side-By-Side up for both streaming and on disc. I haven't seen it in its entirety yet, but I have seen parts of it. It's interesting and smart, if a bit sad for a film-lover such as I.

That said, I did indeed think that Django, while self-indulgent, was pretty good .

[jagabo]

See the answers above, short answer is you can't!

Somehow I suspect that answer is not satisfactory to you.

By the way typically 24p is slowed down to 25p and then interlaced for PAL. For NTCS it is a little bit more complicated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine#2:3_pulldown

Doesn't the number of fields in NTSC pulldown basically make the image into 30 FPS?

Not really. There is no such thing as a frame in interlaced analog TV. You saw only fields on an interlaced TV, 60 fields per second. Film frames alternated between being displayed for the duration of 3 fields (3/60 sec, equivalent to 20 fps) and 2 fields (2/60 second, 30 fps), on average 2.5 fields (2.5/60 second, 24 fps). Hence the judder in addition to the inherent jerkiness/flicker of 24 fps. When digitized it is customary to weave pairs of fields together to produce 30 fps digital video.

Perhaps if video had been invented first then film would have never had a chance of being invented and accepted by the masses.

Of course. If we had a 100 year history of 60 fps movies and someone tried to introduce 24 fps as a new/improved format he'd be laughed out of the theater.