Newbie question about the 'look' of digital video

So last night I was watching a super low budget indie zombie horror film--The Battery--all shot on a 5dii. Because I've been recently considering picking up a 5dII for creative video possibilities, I watched this film not only for entertainment value, but also with an eye on how the video looked. In short, I found that the look of the movie itself wasn't close enough to my paradigm of what a film generally looks like such that I could really watch it without constant reminder that I was watching the digital output of a dslr.

Two questions: First--what qualities am I seeing that is accounting for my ability to be able to pick this out as not a 'real' film (we're excluding cinematography, editing, acting, mic quality etc. obviously) ? Second--what are the ways of addressing these ?

Some cameras - especially the 5D2 and 5D3 can look similar to film when used at 24p. Good lighting is essential to making your own film look like the ones we see in a cinema. There are plugins and programs such as Alien Skin, Davinci Resolve, Boris etc that change the color in the editing process to make it look more like film. This process if often called "grading".

Cinema films use grading experts and really expensive studios to give the film look no matter what the source material. If you think you can simply pull out a DSLR and have it instantly look like movie film, you are going to be very disappointed.

Christopher,

I think you kind of answered your own question... or at least part of it.

Believe it or not, Acting, Audio, Cinematography, Lighting, Camera movement, editing, all play a large part in what we perceive as a professionally made film. Camera movememnt and lighting for example can look amateurish and degrade our perception of the "reality" the film is attempting to create, whereas seamless, almost unnoticable camera movement and lighting reinforce "the look" that we expect from Holywood cinema.

That being said, and to answer your question, there ARE 2 things that directly influence creating the cinema look and they are: Framerate @ 24fps and selective use of shallow depth of field.

The last thing, something that most people forget, is dynamic range. Film is typically 12-14 stops of dynamic range something that DSLR's cannot reproduce without good (and very powerful) lighting when outdoors. OR well crafted lighting when indoors.

I hope that helps!

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16425431
So last night I was watching a super low budget indie zombie horror film--The Battery--all shot on a 5dii. Because I've been recently considering picking up a 5dII for creative video possibilities, I watched this film not only for entertainment value, but also with an eye on how the video looked. In short, I found that the look of the movie itself wasn't close enough to my paradigm of what a film generally looks like such that I could really watch it without constant reminder that I was watching the digital output of a dslr.

Two questions: First--what qualities am I seeing that is accounting for my ability to be able to pick this out as not a 'real' film (we're excluding cinematography, editing, acting, mic quality etc. obviously) ? Second--what are the ways of addressing these ?

sspellman wrote in post #16425780
Cinema films use grading experts and really expensive studios to give the film look no matter what the source material. If you think you can simply pull out a DSLR and have it instantly look like movie film, you are going to be very disappointed.

I have nothing to do with making video look like film, but I've watched Side by side

What they did with both film and digital footage is change colors dramatically. It's almost like an instagram filter for video, but with more control and custom made for each movie to get a different esthetic.

That's how they explain why saving private ryan looks different from o brother where art thou

interesting question and interesting answers, I really like J_O_S_H_U_A's take on this.

My take: When people refer to film like qualities of the image in front of them I think a lot of the time they are not actually referring to actually how physical film would look shot in the same circumstances but a more about the way the shot looks because it has "cinematic" like production values ie good actors, sets, lighting, art direction, camera moves etc and all of the little stuff that goes to make what's on your screen look refined, polished and expensive!

So in answer to your question, these are exactly the things that will make your work look filmic, not whether you use a DSLR or some other type of camera.

So just to recap what seem to be some of the major variables that account for the film look (thanks guys for helping me think about this):

1) frame rate (24p)
2) grading in post (contrast, color)
3) all other aspects of film making. ie. acting, lighting, transparency of camera movement, audio
4) shallow depth of field
5) dynamic range (whites especially don't roll off in digital like they do in film, can be addressed with gradient filters / use of lighting)

What does (4) mean ? Is small DOF a cue for professional productions or the opposite ? I can think of two films even by the same director that use both (Barry Lyndon, especially candle lit scenes and others, shot at f/1.0 I think it was; but also The Killing, which generally features huge depth of field, if I recall correctly. Also--Hitchcock use large depth of field habitually).

One thing I noticed when I had my hands on a 7d: when I zoomed while shooting video, the zoom process itself, zooming in and out, looked phony somehow, like a painting in which the colors were mixing.

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16466743
So just to recap what seem to be some of the major variables that account for the film look (thanks guys for helping me think about this):

1) frame rate (24p)
2) grading in post (contrast, color)
3) all other aspects of film making. ie. acting, lighting, transparency of camera movement, audio
4) shallow depth of field
5) dynamic range (whites especially don't roll off in digital like they do in film, can be addressed with gradient filters / use of lighting)

What does (4) mean ? Is small DOF a cue for professional productions or the opposite ? I can think of two films even by the same director that use both (Barry Lyndon, especially candle lit scenes and others, shot at f/1.0 I think it was; but also The Killing, which generally features huge depth of field, if I recall correctly. Also--Hitchcock use large depth of field habitually).

One thing I noticed when I had my hands on a 7d: when I zoomed while shooting video, the zoom process itself, zooming in and out, looked phony somehow, like a painting in which the colors were mixing.

I agree with all the posted attributes of the "film look". For #4, depth of field does not indicate professional or non-professional. I've seen plenty of movies that have used DOF both appropriately and inappropriately (or so I felt, perhaps informed viewer's choice?). Some people think shallow DOF means high end or professional, but if you have a beautiful backdrop that you don't want to be fully or blurred out at all as it plays a role in the image, obviously you're going to use a long DOF.

One of the reasons your 7D zoom looks artificial is because it is manually controlled, it won't be as smooth as something controlled with a motor with a variable speed function. Also, keep in mind a lot of movies are filmed with primes, thus they aren't actually zooming, but actually moving the camera. If a movie "zooms in", look if the foreground and background are compressing. If they are compressing, it is zoom, if not, they're moving the camera.

So long as my memory serves correct, (5), dynamic range, is the amount of information stored between black and white. The higher the dynamic range (more F stops), the move "levels" there are between black and white, therefore more dynamic information. 12 stops of dynamic range (typical average of DSLRs from my research) is 4096 levels between black and white. 14 stops (which I believe is film) is 16384 levels between black and white, 4 times that of a DSLR, so whereas 1080P is 1080P, the amount of dynamic image information stored within those pictures will lead to dramatically different images. I would imagine there is some level of utilization of that information, perhaps if you only used the lower half of the histogram, you could achieve similar images with a DSLR, but one trained to use the entire dynamic range could achieve a more "rich" image. This of course is just my hypothesis...grain of salt and such.

they used to zoom a lot in the 70s. kung fu and spy movies especially come to mind. tarantino uses it a lot too because he wants to capture the 70s cinema feel. you can use it or not use it, but be aware of what it'll evoke in the viewer.

drewl wrote in post #16468006
they used to zoom a lot in the 70s. kung fu and spy movies especially come to mind. tarantino uses it a lot too because he wants to capture the 70s cinema feel. you can use it or not use it, but be aware of what it'll evoke in the viewer.

Good point, thinking about it we hardly ever see zoomed shots except in found footage type films like Paranormal Activity etc and they are trying to look shot by amateur!