What is Film-Look

[Cornucopia]

...so...there are rules then. Can't "break the rules" if there were no rules.

Actually, it's more of a guideline than a rule.

- Dr. Peter Venkman

@budwzr, such a shot might be seen worldwide (and possibly remembered for quite some time), but, IMO, without both formalist AND contextual depth, it won't have the emotional connection needed to give it longevity beyond novelty or commodity.

Scott

[budwzr]

Hahaha, Peter Venkman.

[fritzi93]

Hahaha, Peter Venkman.

"Excuse me, Egon, you said crossing the streams was BAD."

[Cornucopia]

Whoa, whoa whoa, nice shooting, Tex!

[budwzr]

Mayor: I want HIM out of here!

[Anonymous2]

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

Hmmm...I hear a lot of professionals and semi-professionals are shooting on DSLRs and presenting as film. I think even a part of Skyfall was shot on a DSLR.

"Presenting as "film" "? but they certainly don't advertise it is as "film" .

When handled properly , DSLR can make "filmic" images that look good to the layperson on something like youtube. BUT that' s the key word - it's not the same. There are too many technical limitations as mentioned earlier. "Handled properly" includes everything mentioned above that applies to film as well - good technique, shooting rigs, lighting , lenses, grading, etc.. -you can produce nice "filmic" images but not quite the same as if you had used a digital cinema camera or film . If you could achieve the same results , there would be no reason to spend on the expensive setups

Yes DSLRs have been used in very limited fashion on big budget productions. They are used as an inexpensive way to get things like establishing shots , plate shots - shallow depth of field, large sensor look at a low price. But they are NEVER used as main camera if you can afford it. (They did a full episode of the TV show "Bones" with DSLR's but if you read what the production people say about that, they would never do that again - too many problems and quality isses) . But they are used very frequently for things like music videos, weddings because of the price

Episode of house on DSLR http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/103650-canon-5d-mk2-house-finale

[SameSelf]

What an interesting thread with a lot of great insights. I love this forum!

After just finishing producing the videos of the shows for my son's marching band, I think I can provide some insight about what the "film-look" is and isn't, albeit from an unusual perspective. Prior to producing these videos, I was just a consumer of film and video. Now having worn the producer hat, I noticed my eye is much more discerning about things I never before noticed. In some ways my more discerning eye is unsettling because I am more easily frustrated. I recognize shoddy work easier. Ignorance is bliss right?

IOW, "film-look" is an insider's term that captures whether something has good production values or not. The best analogy I can think of is how a classically trained pianist or violinist listens to a piano or violin concerto versus a non-musician or even a musician of a different instrument. The pianist or violinist is going to hear and maybe see things that the non-specialist won't. Let me explain with a more detailed example. When a trained pianist listens to a young pianist, the trained pianist will be able to tell if that young pianist practices with a metronome or not. This is extremely subtle and only comes with years of experience. This principle applies to all walks of life as we progress from non-specialists to specialists.

Some are decrying Hollywood's move away from film to all digital workflows. I think this is a little shortsighted. Internet forums didn't exist 80 years ago, but if they did I am sure the same would have been said of the move from silent films to talkies. Charlie Chaplin never really made the transition, so case in point. But thankfully we can still enjoy those old silent films. And I am sure the era of film will eventually be considered to possess an aesthetic that seems old fashion given enough time, mainly as new generations come along.

[budwzr]

Charlie Chapman's "Shtick" morphed into The Three Stooges. Charlie Chaplain was a mime, that's why he couldn't go into talkies. Besides that he became stale.

[newpball]

IOW, "film-look" is an insider's term that captures whether something has good production values or not.

What you write is simply not true.

There are great video productions which don't have, pretend or even want a film look.

"Film look" is not a statement of quality.

[Cornucopia]

Charlie Chapman's "Shtick" morphed into The Three Stooges. Charlie Chaplain was a mime, that's why he couldn't go into talkies. Besides that he became stale.

If you haven't yet, please check out Jacques Tati's films (Mr. Hulot's Holiday, Mon Oncle, PlayTime, Traffic, etc.) for examples of elegant perfection of mime comedy in a sound-enabled world.

Scott

[budwzr]

Maybe Chapman had a lousy voice.

[SameSelf]

IOW, "film-look" is an insider's term that captures whether something has good production values or not.

What you write is simply not true.

There are great video productions which don't have, pretend or even want a film look.

"Film look" is not a statement of quality.

That is the first troll-like comment I have encountered on this forum. I guess I have been officially baptized.

The fact that my comments elicit such vitriolic reactions confirms my assessment. Perhaps I was a little too charitable in my initial comments. I am not sure what makes what I write "simply not true." You build a nice strawman by bringing the example of "great video productions." Whatever.

If people have to contend with attitudes such as yours then I fear "film-look" is now loaded language devoid of a certain aesthetic but stuffed with prejudices.

[smrpix]

Maybe Chapman had a lousy voice.

What's all this, then? Graham Chapman had a fine voice.

As did Chaplin, present in any of his talkies -- including "Modern Times" where his voice is only heard singing gibberish. Kind of like Harpo's sneeze in "At the Circus," or Teller's voice, well, every live show.

[smrpix]

IOW, "film-look" is an insider's term that captures whether something has good production values or not.

What you write is simply not true.

There are great video productions which don't have, pretend or even want a film look.

"Film look" is not a statement of quality.

That is the first troll-like comment I have encountered on this forum. I guess I have been officially baptized.

The fact that my comments elicit such vitriolic reactions confirms my assessment. Perhaps I was a little too charitable in my initial comments. I am not sure what makes what I write "simply not true." You build a nice strawman by bringing the example of "great video productions." Whatever.

If people have to contend with attitudes such as yours then I fear "film-look" is now loaded language devoid of a certain aesthetic but stuffed with prejudices.

You're going a bit far here -- film look simply means it looks like it was shot on film instead of video. It was coined in the days (1970's IIRC) when the differences were greater and more obvious.

[budwzr]

Oh yeah, I forgot Chaplain did do vocal effects.

[SameSelf]

IOW, "film-look" is an insider's term that captures whether something has good production values or not.

What you write is simply not true.

There are great video productions which don't have, pretend or even want a film look.

"Film look" is not a statement of quality.

That is the first troll-like comment I have encountered on this forum. I guess I have been officially baptized.

The fact that my comments elicit such vitriolic reactions confirms my assessment. Perhaps I was a little too charitable in my initial comments. I am not sure what makes what I write "simply not true." You build a nice strawman by bringing the example of "great video productions." Whatever.

If people have to contend with attitudes such as yours then I fear "film-look" is now loaded language devoid of a certain aesthetic but stuffed with prejudices.

You're going a bit far here -- film look simply means it looks like it was shot on film instead of video. It was coined in the days (1970's IIRC) when the differences were greater and more obvious.

Who are you talking to?

[newpball]

I am not sure what makes what I write "simply not true."

I am not sure what the confusion is, you wrote:

"film-look" is an insider's term that captures whether something has good production values or not.

I tried to be nice and answered that what you wrote is simply not true, perhaps I should have been a bit more direct and say it is actually utter nonsense what you claim here.

[SameSelf]

I tried to be nice and answered that what you wrote is simply not true, perhaps I should have been a bit more direct and say it is actually utter nonsense what you claim here.

Typing something doesn't make it so. Neither does repeating yourself and adding nothing to the discussion.

[budwzr]

AFAIK, "Film Look" is a marketing buzzword. And a lot of Apple people use it to make themselves sound knowledgeable.

[Anonymous2]

I tried to be nice and answered that what you wrote is simply not true, perhaps I should have been a bit more direct and say it is actually utter nonsense what you claim here.

Typing something doesn't make it so. Neither does repeating yourself and adding nothing to the discussion.

So what you typed does not make it true. I actually agree with newpball.

[budwzr]

IOW, "film-look" is an insider's term that captures whether something has good production values or not.

What you write is simply not true.

There are great video productions which don't have, pretend or even want a film look.

"Film look" is not a statement of quality.

That is the first troll-like comment I have encountered on this forum. I guess I have been officially baptized.

The fact that my comments elicit such vitriolic reactions confirms my assessment. Perhaps I was a little too charitable in my initial comments. I am not sure what makes what I write "simply not true." You build a nice strawman by bringing the example of "great video productions." Whatever.

If people have to contend with attitudes such as yours then I fear "film-look" is now loaded language devoid of a certain aesthetic but stuffed with prejudices.

You're going a bit far here -- film look simply means it looks like it was shot on film instead of video. It was coined in the days (1970's IIRC) when the differences were greater and more obvious.

Who are you talking to?

Who were you referring to?

[budwzr]

IOW, "film-look" is an insider's term that captures whether something has good production values or not.

What you write is simply not true.

There are great video productions which don't have, pretend or even want a film look.

"Film look" is not a statement of quality.

That is the first troll-like comment I have encountered on this forum. I guess I have been officially baptized.

The fact that my comments elicit such vitriolic reactions confirms my assessment. Perhaps I was a little too charitable in my initial comments. I am not sure what makes what I write "simply not true." You build a nice strawman by bringing the example of "great video productions." Whatever.

If people have to contend with attitudes such as yours then I fear "film-look" is now loaded language devoid of a certain aesthetic but stuffed with prejudices.

You're going a bit far here -- film look simply means it looks like it was shot on film instead of video. It was coined in the days (1970's IIRC) when the differences were greater and more obvious.

Who are you talking to?

Who were you referring to?

(Hahaha, I got the biggest post on this thread!!!!!)

[Cornucopia]

IOW, "film-look" is an insider's term that captures whether something has good production values or not.

What you write is simply not true.

There are great video productions which don't have, pretend or even want a film look.

"Film look" is not a statement of quality.

That is the first troll-like comment I have encountered on this forum. I guess I have been officially baptized.

The fact that my comments elicit such vitriolic reactions confirms my assessment. Perhaps I was a little too charitable in my initial comments. I am not sure what makes what I write "simply not true." You build a nice strawman by bringing the example of "great video productions." Whatever.

If people have to contend with attitudes such as yours then I fear "film-look" is now loaded language devoid of a certain aesthetic but stuffed with prejudices.

You're going a bit far here -- film look simply means it looks like it was shot on film instead of video. It was coined in the days (1970's IIRC) when the differences were greater and more obvious.

Who are you talking to?

Who were you referring to?

(Hahaha, I got the biggest post on this thread!!!!!)

Oh, yeah???!!!!!
<post-ular proliferation engaged>

Boy, has this thread devolved. Let's try to get it back on track...

Have been digging into research on oversampling binary sensors, along with stochastic sampling and/or more optimized, non-realtime post-processing CFA AA filtering. Looks like that would blow the roof off of both the HDR and resolution ceiling of current digital sensors and allow for optical "dithering" to Naturalize the regularity of the sampling grid and give the digital image an "organic" feel. Much like uneven grain in film. Also quite reminds me of DSD/SigmaDelta recording. Interesting times.

Scott

[akkers]

I read somewhere that film-look produces a fantasy or make-believe look (not real). They have done psychological tests and have found that when people watch movies they want to see fantasy, they want to be transported to never-land and not be watching reality videos. Thats why higher frame rate movies have not suceeded as yet.

I suspect the film-look will have another 20-30 yrs shelf life. Until a big game-changer in video comes along, film look is here to stay. Currently HD and 4K have had no impact on the film-look. Maybe something really fantastic in video field will change the balance one day.

[smrpix]

I suspect the film-look will have another 20-30 yrs shelf life.

I suspect that since even film goes through a digital intermediate which retains more of the captured information than the old days of film CRI, since digital image sensors are already capable of capturing more detail and almost as much latitude as 35mm film, since the exact same lenses are available for both film and digital, since the exact same frame rates are available for film and digital, since the exact same lighting is available for film and digital, since the filmed or digitally acquired image is processed by the same color correcting software in the same suites by the same colorists. Since innovation and trying to achieve an original look that no one has seen before drives creativity on both sides of the equation... I suspect this conversation is already long moot.

Now, what word are we going to use to describe digitally acquired motion images? Video is no longer accurate.

[budwzr]

I'm sure Panavision and Technicolor has a trick up their sleeves to get a monopoly again.

[smrpix]

I'm sure Panavision and Technicolor has a trick up their sleeves to get a monopoly again.

I went to a seminar that Technicolor gave at the Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood a few years back. Their innovation at the time was the reintroduction of IB prints -- now faster and on reusable blank stock. They showed the first reel of "Thin Red Line" -- looked fantastic. Of course the Sony 4K projectors in most mutiplexes throw a damn nice image too -- and no more heavy reels to haul around the world.

Panavision should be okay with their nice lenses, but I'm betting on Sony cameras and projectors to pick off a lot of Technicolor's old business.

[Seeker47]

I read somewhere that film-look produces a fantasy or make-believe look (not real). They have done psychological tests and have found that when people watch movies they want to see fantasy, they want to be transported to never-land and not be watching reality videos. Thats why higher frame rate movies have not suceeded as yet.

On a strictly empirical basis, I would agree with that.

[Seeker47]

I think even a part of Skyfall was shot on a DSLR.

IMHO the worst Bond movie ever.

The boxoffice results beg to differ on that.
(Hope you're not going to tell us that your preference runs to Roger Moore . . . .)

[newpball]

I think even a part of Skyfall was shot on a DSLR.

IMHO the worst Bond movie ever.

The boxoffice results beg to differ on that.

I am not surprised, my movie preferences do not very well match movie boxoffice results.

How about you? Are your most favorite movies the most popular movies?

(Hope you're not going to tell us that your preference runs to Roger Moore . . . .)

Actually I think Craig acts pretty well, Casino Royale I consider one of the better bond movies.

My problem with Skyfall is first and foremost the script.