As many of you know, I’m a sucker for “movie looks.” Most of my directing work is narrative-based, so I’m naturally drawn to a more cinematic look as it’s often conducive to the dramatic stories I like to tell. While I’m not the only filmmaker pursuing this aesthetic, I think many directors and DPs are indeed pursuing more of a high-end digital look – even if they don’t know it.
In some ways, I emerged at the best and worst of times for independent film photography. When I was starting out (high school and early 20s) miniDV cameras were very popular, the Canon XL1 and Panasonic DVX100 were the 5D and BMCC of the day. It’s a fantastic time for low/no budget filmmakers as these cameras can affordably shoot fairly high quality video, and in many cases the results can even be compared to Super 16mm film . The only problem is – this isn’t Super 16mm film. If I (or anyone else of my generation) had grown up ten years earlier, we would be living and breathing movies, we wouldn’t try to imitate its look but simply own it and be free to Focus on the bigger picture—the content itself. We often forget how accessible and ubiquitous film is, it wasn’t that long ago, in the 90s and early 2000s, that even low budget productions (docs, music videos, etc.) would often still choose to shoot on film because it was so widely available .
While I’ve always loved the aesthetic of cinema, perhaps what attracted me most was the fact that it was always out of reach. I started working semi-professionally on the cusp of the digital video revolution and always had it in my mind – my next project would be shot on film. But the next project was never shot on film, as digital technology continues to develop and innovate at an astonishing pace. It was a bittersweet time for me as a filmmaker (as I began to enjoy the benefits of digital technology and shooting film quickly became a pipe dream), but thankfully, digital Film technology advanced rapidly enough that before long I was content shooting digitally. Work on a 5D or other digital SLR camera starts to look great, and before I knew it I was working in RED and felt like I was finally getting close to that “film look”…even though I later learned that wasn’t possible Task.
movie appearance
About a year ago I wrote an article titled “How to make video footage look like a movie”. In the article, I outline 9 key factors in achieving a cinematic look—from depth of field, to lighting, to color correction and everything in between. While all the points I’ve detailed are certainly relevant to achieving a “cinematic image”, they are equally relevant to achieving a “cinematic look”, and I think these are actually two different things.
There’s no denying that “Gone Girl,” “Skyfall” or any of the myriad other Hollywood-level digitally shot films are cinematic. Even though they weren’t shot on film, the filmmakers approached the process (both on a creative and technical level) in a very similar way to how they would have been shot on film, with inevitable adjustments being made along the way to fit the digital format.
Of course, the final product is beautifully produced, shot, and colored in a way that the average viewer would never know from looking at 35mm film stock. In fact, they’re so well made that most up-and-coming filmmakers probably wouldn’t be able to tell the difference from the movies… However, that’s not because the films actually look identical to the movies, but because audiences (including professionals) People in the industry) are used to believing that film and movies are the same thing, I think they are very different.
The only way to get authentic cinematic effects
If you really want to see this movie in its most literal sense, there’s only one secret to achieving that – Actually shooting the movie. While you may be able to get close enough to the numbers that 99% of viewers will never be able to tell the difference, if you’re one of the 1% who do know the difference and really go for the cinematic effect, you never will until you actually Just grab your film and camera and use it. It’s a harsh reality that thankfully only affects the fewer and fewer of us who actually care about how movies look. But if there’s one thing I’ve learned after years of shooting digital – no matter what you do, it will never be a perfect match for film.
In fact, film is film and digital is digital. We can make better digital cameras every year that get closer to the look of film (and maybe even exceed the capabilities of film at some technical levels), but it’s always a different format. While it may be frustrating to think that we will never be able to shoot with a digital camera that simulates the look of film, I think the key is to embrace both formats. For many of you reading this, you may feel like you want to achieve a cinematic look, but really… you probably want a cinematic look – which can largely be achieved digitally, especially using tools like Arri Cameras like Alexa.
It wasn’t until recently, when I started shooting 35mm film again (for still photography), that I realized how distorted many people’s perceptions of film appearance actually are. After showing a few people some raw scans of my slides (without telling them it was shot on film), I had two people comment on separate occasions about how the photos could be tinted to make them more “cinematic” ”.
One of the 35mm lenses:
The irony, of course, is that these photos were taken on film! This should be the definition of cinema… While it’s interesting to me to hear these comments, it makes me realize that the average person (even those in the industry) really don’t know what cinema is like anymore. We’ve become so used to watching movies shot by digital cameras like the Alexa that we don’t always realize what we’re really after… Don’t get me wrong, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the way the Alexa looks, as some of the most popular cameras in the world today have produced Digital imaging at its best. However, for an experienced DP who has been shooting movies their entire career, they will immediately know the difference. They are two different formats for two different types of works.
We can always get a sense of where a film is going (quality-wise) through digital photography. Capturing a single high-quality raw image is obviously simpler than capturing 24 images per second, which is why photography is always several steps ahead in terms of resolution and overall image quality. The fact that even with 50+ megapixel cameras, digital and film (on a photographic level) still look very different today shows that innovation is taking us in new directions and we need to embrace that.
So when you’re making your next movie, think carefully about whether you’re going for a film look or a digital look. Because if it’s the latter, I highly recommend you save some time and energy and embrace digital instead of fighting it. Shooting 5D/Red/GH4 footage and running it through FilmConvert does not make it more cinematic. The creamy black doesn’t make it cinematic either. Either add too much grain (especially considering how low grain most modern motion picture films are). So if you’re really determined to shoot on film, go for it. The industry needs more people like you…but if you just want a cinematic look and enjoy a high-end digital aesthetic, then tweak your process to maximize results in that format.
Update; I’ve just released my custom film grain packs – now available in Clean and Dirty versions – that allow you to add real Super 35mm, Super 16mm and Super 8mm grain to your digital footage. Check them out here!
