How Many Stops of Dynamic Range Needed for Cinematic Look?

[jonpais]

Right, I couldn’t help but noticing that comment myself. But again, I don’t think it’s entirely subjective. It can easily be demonstrated how the footage is lacking, for example: the constant jump cuts, monotonous repetition, purposeless pans of uninteresting buildings, split screen and zooms of the couple, slow motion that adds nothing to the story, the disjointedness and the the dull lighting and grading. 

[elgabogomez]

I remember people complaining about “mtv look” in the 90s and how it wasn’t cinema like... then run Lola run came to cinema and since that worked for the story, it became accepted. At one point, a well choreographed scene like the restaurant scene in goodfellas was considered the ultimate cinematic goal, now you can do it relatively easy with a small camera and a glidecam or a gimbal. So I think cinematic is when it works for the story/style. Whether that is movement or tripod shot, it depends on the meaning, not specific technique. Paranormal activity was very video looking and that was the point. 

[jonpais]

Was that the point of the Terra 4K clip then? To show how it can look video-ish?

[elgabogomez]

I’m not defending that clip, first time I saw it I abandoned it halfway. But it’s not clipped, not blown, not over sharpened, yes the skin tones are not handled nicely but that’s the grade not the camera. The lack of “cinematic “ in that video is not technical, is just not saying much and it’s not even a camera test that brings much to the conversation. So my point is that cinematic look needs as much dynamic range as pancakes need butter...

[jonpais]

For some reason these discussions always lead back to food. ?

[Jim Giberti]

And with that, I'm off to lunch.

[Mark Romero 2]

And since I like a LOT of butter on my pancakes...

[fuzzynormal]

13 hours ago, jonpais said:

For some reason these discussions always lead back to food. ?

White bean soup anyone?  Gotta do something with these Easter ham leftovers.

[kye]

23 hours ago, elgabogomez said:

I’m not defending that clip, first time I saw it I abandoned it halfway. But it’s not clipped, not blown, not over sharpened, yes the skin tones are not handled nicely but that’s the grade not the camera. The lack of “cinematic “ in that video is not technical, is just not saying much and it’s not even a camera test that brings much to the conversation. So my point is that cinematic look needs as much dynamic range as pancakes need butter...

I recently watched an interview with a DoP talking about equipment and he basically said that his preference is that the equipment not impart anything on the 'look' of the film, and therefore he chooses equipment that will accurately capture what is put in front of it.  Therefore it was about operating the camera like a technician, choosing lenses that are sharp with minimal distortion, and faithfully executing the direction of the others on set who are artistic, like director etc.  His view was that the look of a film is created by the stuff in front of the camera and what is done in post.

I've just spent about 20 minutes trying to find the link and FML I can't find it..  I consume too much from too many sources!

He did mention that some people like using vintage lenses and creative filters etc, and didn't criticise that approach.  I must admit that I personally find this perspective to make sense, and I've looked at things like the Tiffen Mist filters and decided that I can do a 'good enough' emulation of them in post (which lead me to include the Glow OFX plugin into my workflow) but with the added benefit that the effect isn't baked-into the footage and therefore I can tweak it in post to get it how I like rather than being stuck with what the filter gives me.