Comments on: The elusive “film look”

By: roy reyes

roy reyes — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 07:26:27 +0000

definitely elusive. 2 years ago i discovered color correction and the power of 35mm adapter. now grading has come to a level of perfection. this is very helpful. now i have to redo all my videos.

good work Eugenia.

☻/
/▌
/ \

By: Jason Boyd (Jay Boy)

Jason Boyd (Jay Boy) — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 13:56:36 +0000

Eugenia,

Hey! Thanks for posting my DIY dolly tutorial! I haven’t been doing any video work in a while, but still come by here to see what you’re up to. Hope all is well!

Cheers, Jay Boy

By: ojimenez

ojimenez — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:21:50 +0000

“Transsiberian” 2008 Anyone interested in film should rent this movie and study it, frame by frame, scene by scene, shot by shot. It is an elegant film, from the cinematography to the editing, to the story-telling. It was built like a Harley-Davidson or a Leica rangefinder; elegantly, with precision and meticulous care.

By: Lee

Lee — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:48:02 +0000

I’m editing a short film I shot right now and I can safely say I’ve already broken a few of these guidelines. Mostly with #3.

Great list.

By: Danny

Danny — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:06:44 +0000

Love love LOVE the glidetrack for those dolly shots. Remember people, in films when do you see zooms??? Almost never is the question. The reason being is films try to immerse you in the story and when you pull off a move the human eye cant replicate (like a zoom) its jaring and throws you out. For this reason tools like a glidetrack and Steadicam are essential to keep you in the moment.

By: rhy7s

rhy7s — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:44:08 +0000

>"Citizen Cane"?? Re: Long shots, I'm assuming you're not a fan of Citizen Kane - let alone Béla Tarr or Kurosawa. Some examples with more of a photographic bent than the norm these days Slow Cinema.

By: Eugenia

Eugenia — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:52:39 +0000

Obviously. My husband hates his movies because of the slowness in them. So he has already lost a fan, right there.

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:47:17 +0000

\Don’t waste your time in shots that are useless and don’t progress the story. \

Someone needs to let Stanley Kubrick in on this little secret.

By: Daren

Daren — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:14:53 +0000

Hi Eugenia,

Thanks for the explanation about the “film look”. Your explanation of why film is shot in low contrast, low saturation makes sense that post processing works better.

Most movies are left in that low contrast,low saturation look even when they reach the theater. I’ve often wondered if the real reason for the low contrast, low saturation in movies is just to make it easier (and quicker) to match together all the different scenes. Sometimes even including stock footage shot by others. So going for lowest common denominator shooting for compatability.

So what I’m saying is that maybe the filmic look is just a byproduct of the film industry trying to make things easier for themselves.

Thanks,

By: Eugenia

Eugenia — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:57:35 +0000

Danny, flat image constitutes a very un-saturated, un-contrasty, un-sharpened image. You go to your camera’s menus and change these values. That flat image is ideal for color grading. Contrasty/saturated images are impossible to color grade properly.