Thank you.
I just felt it may have been a way to disrespect the culture, and language of a people. Glad it's not meant nor seen that way. I appreciate your personal insight, sincerely.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Shares 'Shot on iPhone 13 Pro' Film Celebrating Chinese New Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thank you.
I just felt it may have been a way to disrespect the culture, and language of a people. Glad it's not meant nor seen that way. I appreciate your personal insight, sincerely.
Easterners tend to not actively look for offense for the purpose of extracting social justice all willy nilly.
Our Universities are a bit more practical that way.
Our focus is to graduate to find high paying jobs for skills that do not attract much interest elsewhere.
In short, no. Even basic lighting (or natural light if you can) can be sufficient for many things, particular if you are mostly shooting exteriors during the day.
The video quality on the phone is quite good, particularly if shot in ProRes and then colour graded.
A lot of the "home video" look comes from a lack of cinematography skills, e.g. framing, composition, camera movement, appropriate frame rates, lighting, and then a whole raft of scripting and editing and general post-production.
so, if you understand a lot of this stuff may I ask an out of topic question:-
Film "look" got its unique aesthetic because of the film medium it was shot on and looked different from what was shot on video tape. Now everything is digital, why do movies still have that "film" look?
is it possible they manipulate the digital video in colour and lighting to make it look like film medium?
Excellent question!
From my understanding, "film look" is mostly down to the following (in no particular order of importance)
1) Frame rate - as you know film is conventionally shot at 24 frames per second for most real-time action (with obvious exceptions for slow motion and "sped-up" playback resulting from recording at a lower or faster frame rate and then playing back at 24fps). Quite a lot of video is shot at 30fps or 60fps (or 25/50 in Europe) because that is the TV standard and it's just easier to deal with. The result is the typical "soap opera" effect where the reduced motion blur (often combined with "high key" lighting) makes it look very different to film.
(Some high budget feature films diverge from this, notably "The Hobbit" at , by filming at high frame rates (48fps - albeit with digital cameras), which creates a "hyper-real" look with high fidelity but reduced motion blur. A lot of people hated it.
2) Dynamic range - a lot of cheaper video equipment has a far smaller dynamic range than film stock. This is range from black to white. Chemical 35mm film can get maybe 12-14 stops of dynamic range, which is now matched by high end digital cameras, but not cheaper ones. Lower dynamic ranges means there is less contrast overall (not being able to see graduation in the shadow or dark areas or blowing out the highlights ).
3) Sensor technology - after a certain point, the specifications of high-end video sensor look similar but they have different qualities (sometimes called "colour science" amongst other terms). Small, cheap sensors of the sort found in phones and cheaper cameras are unlikely to match this quality. Digital cinema cameras often try to reproduce the "film look" through technological solutions. That said the fact you can get an entry-level 4K cinema camera for <$1500 days means high quality is far more accessible these days.
4) Lighting - a lot of what we think of as "video look" is due to lighting, resulting from all of the above. TV shows shot in video were (previously) fairly cheap and used lots of interior sets, that then had to lit fairly harshly to overcome limitations in dynamic range, and also because the "mood" of productions (sitcoms etc.) called for "high-key" lighting. These days digital cameras would mostly used the same kinds of lighting as film cameras (with the advantage that you can often push digital cameras a lot harder in dark conditions by boosting the gain/ISO)
5) Shutter speed - this is only really an issue where you can't control this, such as phones. Normally, you choose a shutter speed that is twice your frame rate, or 1/48s when recording at 24fps. The shutter speed also affects how we perceive motion and how it interacts with the frame rate. Having a faster shutter speed creates a "choppier" effect - one of the best known examples being the Omaha beach scene in "Saving Private Ryan". It captures each frame for less time, resulting in less motion blur, but at the same frame rate. Cameras that vary this automatically based on light, or choose high shutter speeds to reduce motion blur can look a bit weird.
I'm sure there a few others! Film is also "analog" and has grain and difference colour responses and processing steps that can alter its look, so this is also a big part of why it looks different. It's the same argument as vinyl vs digital music, and shows that even if modern technology is objectively more accurate, it may not appeal to us aesthetically.
To answer you second question, yes, nearly digital video that ends up on TV/Cinema (other than news, live TV etc.) is processed in post-production, mostly to match colours between scenes. Most film is edited the same way on digital systems though, and I doubt that there is much "chemical manipulation" (colour timing) done these days on film stock. The lighting used for digital and film cameras is pretty much the same these days AFAIK
Absolutely. I love listening to Roger Deakins about how he lights his films - it's an education.
I think it's great that to some extent the specifications and quality of the camera gear is now a relatively minor consideration, allowing cinematographers to focus on the art rather than the technology.
Amen. I've been preaching that for years for still photography. Gear makes little difference, outside of some edge cases.
Thanks for the detailed answer. So is there a scientific reason to light and make video have that "film look" , or is it just when they first started doing movies it was on film and film gave that look and thats what people like now?
Another interesting question is, why some shows shot on film (or have film look) and others are made to look like home video/soap opera effect (sitcoms) ? My only guess is that film look makes it serious and fantasy, and video makes it look like average every day life scene to relate to the common people.
Just thinking why wouldn't a show like Married with Children get shot on film like Breaking Bad
I'm a photographer, not a cinematographer, so the following is just speculation...
I suspect it has to do with the feeling and look that enhances or easily supports the story the filmmaker is trying to tell. Or perhaps it what he/she feels comfortable using to get that look. Today, I'm guessing that can be achieved either way.
As a photographer who likes to photograph people in urban environments (candid or hitting up strangers for conversation and a portrait), for me it's all about the quality of light and interesting shadows. And environmental context. I'm looking for an environment that has a bit of mystery and helps stir a viewer's imagination, ideally releasing some kind of narrative. Interesting light/shadows helps promote that, as does hiding information in shadows to pose questions in a viewer's mind. Why supply all the answers, when a viewer's mind/imagination can wander a bit to piece together their own narrative?
I imagine filmmaking is somewhat similar but far far more complex, including the notion of time, and of course, sound. In either situation, film or digital capture, the quality of light is critical.
As @citysnaps said, it's often a question of intent, supported by lighting, location and colour.
We are used to seeing cinematic projection at 24fps, with a "180-degree shutter" (i.e. an exposure of 1/48s), with a high dynamic range and highly crafted lighting conditions.
These days there really isn't such a big difference between digital and film because the digital cameras have been able to reproduce many of the properties of film (although film purists will disagree). Long-form drama tends to be lit the same way, with lots of exteriors and more challenging shots aiming to create a deeper emotional reaction. For comparison "Breaking Bad" was shot on film and "Better Call Saul" on Digital (have a look at https://shotonwhat.com/ to see a database of film and TV production notes).
The difference to sit-coms is that the these are often mostly interiors and are lit "high-key" with low contrast and bright lights. This is expected for comedy in terms of mood... whereas a Scandinavian Noir drama would be...well...more "noir" in both mood and colour/contrast.
One thing I will point out, which is one of my pet peeves with modern TVs, is the tendency of manufacturers (or owners) to set these to "smoother picture" / "high frame rate" or similar. This artificially injects interpolated frames to create high frame rate in content that didn't originally have it. (normally 24fps films displayed on 50/60Hz screens repeat frames 3 or 2 times alternately to allow for TV broadcast standards, which preserves the "film look"). The result is making a $100m feature film shot on film or high-end digital cameras look like a budget soap-opera....why on earth people enjoy this eludes me
Any time I go to a hotel, rental or even a friend or family member's house, I change these settings to "cinematic look" and my sanity is restored
There is definitely a case for high frame rates for watching sports, playing video games or anything that doesn't need to look "arty" or "film-like".
ShotOnWhat?
ShotOnWhat? is the central database for documenting the equipment, processes, stories and facts on the making of movies & TV shows. ShotOnWhat? collects and organizes the technical aspects of the Motion Picture & Television Production Industry.shotonwhat.com
thanks for the info! I didn't know they were still using film I thought that industry died for the most part. Its a real head scratcher why would a director shoot on film over digital, given that digital is cheaper and more manipulative.
although I have to say the movies shot on film pre-2000 look substantially different, you can actually see the grain in them. They are not crystal clear like now days, but it has its charms, feels more authentic than a CGI composition.
There are still quite a few (big budget) productions shot on film, e.g. Tenet, Wonder Woman 1984 & No Time To Die (https://collider.com/2020-movies-shot-on-film/)
Why No Time to Die and others are still using film in a digital world
On September 30th No Time to Die will hit UK cinemas, making it part of a small group of productions that choose to keep using film, despite digital becoming the dominant acquisition format.
www.redsharknews.com
I think the choice mostly comes down to (1) budget - it's definitely more expensive, particular in the large formats like 65mm and IMAX, so is limited to productions with deep pockets and established production teams (2) aesthetics preferred and shared by the director and director of photography (3) familiarity with the workflow and equipment
I think film will end up being either for "specialized use" with large formats or where a specific look is desired that can't be duplicated with digital. The digital technology will get better and may attempt to simulate the look of feel of film (there are already post-production effects to mimic specific vintage film stock colours and film grain), or perhaps new audiences will just get used to the appearance of high-resolution digital capture. For cinema projection, it's almost all digital these days, with a few exceptions for large format cinemas.