Looking For Ways to Make Video Look More Like Film

DrJens wrote on 9/6/2011, 1:05 PM

Hmm.... it is hard to emulate film, but you can come close(r) with this:

- Progressive recording at 24 fps (or 25)
- Color correction (e,g, those included in Magic Bullet Suite)
- DOF adapter

JohnnyRoy wrote on 9/6/2011, 1:32 PM

You could use a plug-in like VASST Celluloid to give your video a film look. The base Celluloid download is free and comes with 5 free looks. Try "Cold Ethel" or "Pushed 16mm" and you should get a nice film look. "Winter's Coming" will give a nice cold stylized look. You can buy more looks by adding any of our 5 ReelPaks.

~jr

fwtep wrote on 9/6/2011, 2:36 PM

That's not film. You can tell it was shot on video. There's some processing going on, but it's not a "film look" they were going after, it was some kind of personal stylized look. The lighting is high key/low fill, with the highs burning out.

Red Prince wrote on 9/6/2011, 3:37 PM

Sometimes though, my videos still have a certain look that says "amateur."

Well, that one does, but not because it lacks film look. It appears to be shot with too long a focal length, so everything is flat (the singers appear plastered on the wall). The lighting needs a lot of work (which is another reason the singer appears plastered on the wall). There is no depth of field (a common problem with video shot with a camera with a small sensor) The placement of the camera, the angle from which you are looking at your subjects is not too great. Takes are too long (the ADHD generation raised on music videos expects a cut every 2-3 seconds, just like that Lady Gaga video you were comparing yours to), etc. It would not look any more “professional” if shot on film, except perhaps for the depth of field.

That said, so what that it says “amateur”? It is a YouTube tutorial. Most YouTubers don’t care about those things. And quite frankly, it’s not worth your time and money (yes, it costs a lot of money) to worry about those things for a YouTube video. Now, if you were after the first place at a film festival, that would be a different matter.

But the main points to concentrate on if you want to improve your video is the proper focal length (don’t zoom in, move the camera closer), proper lighting, depth of field (may require a different camera or an adapter), shoot it simultaneously with several cameras from different angles then cut among them often in edit (at least if you want that Gaga look), and by golly don’t ever show your actor’s back except for some very dramatic reasons (but never in this type of tutorial)!

Steve Mann wrote on 9/6/2011, 3:38 PM

If you want "film look", shoot film.

Define "film look". Every filmmaker seems to have a different definition.

Now, if you want to emulate the video you gave as an example, look for a bleach F/X (looks like the film was in the bleach too long). NewBlue has this.

Here's my definition of "Film Look":
Film Look: The art of damaging the video to look like it was shot on film.

Red Prince wrote on 9/6/2011, 5:24 PM

The art of damaging the video to look like it was shot on film.

Agreed. Like there is something wrong with videos looking like videos.

Rainer wrote on 9/6/2011, 5:38 PM

After many years I've come to the view that "film look" comes from celluloid being fed through a projector. If it's video, it's video and if you are trying to pass it off as film you are engaged in a pointless quest largely fostered by plugin manufacturers. You can emulate a film look most effectively by reverse telecineing your video and showing it in a cinema.

KRyan wrote on 9/6/2011, 8:12 PM

Thanks so much to everyone who replied! Yeah, "film look" was really not the right description. I do want it to look more like the Pomplamoose video though, and the suggestions you guys gave was awesome. Also, the whole focal-length and depth-of-field thing is something I need to learn about.

Thanks again!

Ken

JJKizak wrote on 9/8/2011, 6:56 AM

First you must duplicate the very low frequency flutter form the sound tracks as viewed in "The Ten Comandments". Then the periodic tiny noise bursts that show up as flashes. Next the the two or three emulsion color changes as they switch to different reels. Next the switching keys in the upper corner of the films to know when to switch the reel. Now round off each corner of the project from square to round. Run the "Vegas Quake" to duplicate the vertical and horizontal registration jitter in the projection gate. Then "Jitter" the titles in relationship to the background. Next you must run all the "pans" at 18fps to create "Judder". Some nice "scratch" simulations would be in order where some dunce let the film run all over the floor and didn't clean it. You might create some "uneven projection lighting effects" like an increased center washout caused by errors in cooling. You could add the noise of the projector gate with some operator sipping coffee. OK, I'm just funnin.
JJK

PeterWright wrote on 9/8/2011, 7:36 AM

Nice one JJK

Serena wrote on 9/8/2011, 8:00 AM

OK, so some of the above at least glanced around the point of the question. When you said "film look" you really meant "cinematic". On You-tube there are many videos less interesting than yours but, as you mentioned, you have some way to go. In terms of cinematography (lighting, composition, camera work) you would benefit from the internet courses offered by http://www.fstopacademy.com/F-Stop Academy[/link], and they do understand that "film look" has nothing to do with scratches. Currently they are offering an advanced hands-on course in a music video production, but I think you're not ready for that and it is relatively expensive (and in the UK).
Examine carefully the Lady Gaga Telephone video: simple images that have presence through filling the screen without extraneous details. The backgrounds to performers are as bad as in your video, but the performers dominate through closeness, lighting, composition and action. And cutting. Audio is dynamic and the images emphasise that. In fact, in terms of the cinematic, it's crude -- anyone could have put that together with very little equipment.

farss wrote on 9/8/2011, 9:09 AM

Lighting and framing, forget about the rest, at least until you master that. Even those are two edged swords. Unless your talent / clients will afford you the time and put up with you directing them there's a limit to what you can achieve.

The original Lady Gaga music videos are shot over days, best DPs, best gear, purpose built sets with fly away walls and an almost demonic obsession with perfection. Your work could be better for sure but if you've got plenty of it be careful. You can price yourself out of your market and get clients offside trying to achieve something they don't really care about.

Bob.

richard-amirault wrote on 9/8/2011, 11:54 AM

There is no depth of field (a common problem with video shot with a camera with a small sensor)

Just the reverse ... there is too much depth of field (a common problem with video shot with a camera with a small sensor)

"depth of field" is the distance in front of and behind the point of focus where items appear sharp. Generally 1/3 in front and 2/3'rds beyond the focus point ... the *actual* distance depending on the f-stop used. Smaller f-stop [larger numbers] = larger distance, larger f-stop [smaller numbers] = smaller / shallower distance.

Red Prince wrote on 9/8/2011, 2:15 PM

You know what I meant! No depth of field control.

richard-amirault wrote on 9/8/2011, 4:39 PM

Yes, but .... it's like calling a black screen WHITE. If enough folks call it white (and nobody corrects it), then people will think it's ok to call it white .. and it's not.

It's a 'personal' thing with me. I was a still photographer long before I was a videographer. Every time I see that usage I need to say something.

Red Prince wrote on 9/8/2011, 5:20 PM

I was a still photographer long before I was a videographer.

Me too! I still shoot more stills than anything else. The way I look at it, if you are not using DoF properly, you are not using it at all, and that was my point.

farss wrote on 9/8/2011, 5:22 PM

I'd be more worried about eye line than DOF in the video.
Hint for the OP, don't have the lens lower then the subject's eyes unless you have no choice.

Bob.

Serena wrote on 9/8/2011, 9:00 PM

Actually it's important that people use technical terms correctly, otherwise there comes a time when, walla!, nobody understands anyone else. If I make such mistakes I hope to be corrected, rather than keep on appearing (or being) ignorant.
Actually the gaga video has deep DoF throughout, including close-ups. A difference between Ken's work and gaga is that Ken has let the wallpaper be very distracting. Yes, shallow DoF could have helped there, but without recomposing and relighting the images they would still have lacked life. Very likely gaga didn't shoot in a cottage, but there is nothing to indicate a studio setting (even to the quilt hanging in the percussionist's "room"). The lighting is simple and effective. Technically Ken could have shot that with his gear. The differences are in pre-planning of detail, direction, composition, action and editing. Look at the variety of camera angles, performers relocated in the set, and so on. That wasn't shot in an hour. And, of course, it's a music video, so the audio is king (and was studio pre-recorded).

Yes, John, just to pre-empt: voila!

ushere wrote on 9/8/2011, 9:20 PM

nobody understands anyone else

this also probably applies to manufacturers when using 'proprietary' codecs in ordinary cameras and then finding themselves harassed by editors because they wont load in their nle ;-)

John_Cline wrote on 9/9/2011, 6:04 AM

LOL, Serena, I was just about to jump on the "walla!" and then, voilà, I noticed you preempted me!

Red Prince wrote on 9/9/2011, 2:45 PM

But she pre-emptied you with voila, not voilà!

Serena wrote on 9/9/2011, 8:29 PM

That's because I'm ignorant on the method of typing accents!

John_Cline wrote on 9/9/2011, 9:33 PM

Nevertheless, I was preempted with the correct word. I didn't realize that my pedantic nature was THAT well-known among the Vegas forum users.

Serena wrote on 9/9/2011, 10:20 PM

Ah, John, well, the discussion had veered into a "you knew what I meant" direction and also I agree with you that writers ought not to be careless with words; especially with technical terms. "Walla!" is one of those nice examples of people not understanding what they're saying, so it was a natural for including in my response (recalling a previous thread in which you got involved). In this country teachers deal with spelling in a some sort of phonetic way rather than by rote (or reading), and on the web it is easy to confuse carelessness with ignorance. Your (you're), there (their), apple's (apples), and so on, all careless uses that cause one to pause mid-sentence to ask "what are they trying to say?". Often it's obvious, but other times they say the opposite to what they mean. Ambiguous expression is an impediment to clear communication. Of course language evolves and we can't hold that back (L'Académie Française excepted), but there will always be we small band of brothers (and sisters) trying to hold back the tides. And in this State they include txtng in English xpreshun!