Jump to content
stefanocps

cinematic color?

Recommended Posts

Looking around to buy a nex camera, i come across several video that are presented as "cinematic style" Made with gh5,xt3,bmpcc or whatever their feature is a color that is strongly characterized. I like them and i think i should buy a camera that would allow me to do that.

Then i watch a movie, at cinema or tv and the color is totally different. It is the opposite of what is defined cinematic style in slr videos. In this case colo is true color, natural, as well as light and everyhting else

So what is the cinematic style?? :)

What is your opinion about?

I want to reach the latter style in  my video, not the first one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

Because they can is the short answer.

It is entirely subjective term so can be interpreted in many different ways by many different people.

And is.

If I'm being cynical I'd also say including the word 'cinematic' in any YouTube camera review or tutorial is guaranteed to get clicks from those seeking an answer to the question.

The correlation between such videos on YouTube and the offering of a LUT pack or ebook or some such by its creator is reasonably high too.

There is no answer to the technical question about how to create something that is so subjective.

And if you search for the threads on here that have attempted to do that then they don't end up well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The golden age of cinema was truly something to be admired.  Here are the TOP SECRET insider settings that will MAGICALLY turn your camera into a CINEMA BEAST.

PROFESSIONAL CINEMATOGRAPHERS DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW THIS

We all know that you can't get cinematic video straight out of a camera, so most of these are in post.

Camera:

  • Shoot in NATURAL or the default style (LOG profiles are a trick to fool the try-hards)
  • Set your aperture to F8 (that's why the most famous photographers say "f8 and be there")
  • Film had a wonderfully organic resolution, so It's important to get the highest resolution camera you can - shoot 8K RAW if you can, 10-bit is barely a minimum, but 12-bit or 14-bit is better
  • Depending on the aesthetic you want you can film at 23.976 fps, or less.  Ideally you would film at a rate that varies to simulate the camera operator turning a handle, but even the most expensive cinema cameras still lack this feature, even in 2019, it's madness but it's reality

Post-production:

  • Set your Saturation to zero
  • Lower your contrast until the whites aren't white, and the blacks aren't black, you want that soft look
  • Highlight all your audio tracks and delete them, if you want you can add a single track back in and put in a single piano soundtrack, but silent is the most 'pure'
  • Whatever frame rate you recorded at, you must play it back at 23.976 fps - this will give that classic "people walking as fast as ants" look
  • Add noise, film grain plugins that have real digitised film grain are best - DO NOT GO CHEAP ON THIS
  • When you output your footage it's important to get the settings right - the most important is to output in 1080 as a MAX (4K is totally out)

Yes, I'm taking the piss, but actually if you want to replicate the silent film era then these are good instructions.  My point is that there is no 'cinematic' look, so the only place that you can be sure of that won't help you is anyone using the word "cinematic".  Seriously, cinema looks so great because it's a combination of every department doing their job really well.  We've been making movies for long enough to work out what matters and what doesn't, and anything that doesn't matter has been cut from the budget of film-making since before any of us were born.

What you really want is to make great looking films, which is really a personal thing that only you can find out what it means to you, and the only way to do that is to learn every job in every department of a film production and do them all really well.

Film-making is art that uses enormous amounts of technology - that's why is SO DIFFICULT IT'S NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Welcome to our pain, and our pleasure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the phrase "cinematic colour" relies far more on the first word than the second particularly when bearing in mind how many films that helped define and still inform the language of cinema were shot in Black & White.

Ciematic, to me, is determined by every single element in the frame being directed and controlled.

Everything from the lighting to the shot selection to the location to the art drection and on and on has to be intended and managed deliberately.

If you haven't got that right before it hits the sensor then no amount of lossless codecs or grading is going to be able to inject that.

Its why the "run and gun" approach, to me, just isn't compatible with it outside of some very specific circumstances.

I think you can try and ape the aesthetic somewhat but with the best will in the world, pointing a "cinema" camera at three people at a table in an Italian restaurant is never going to look like it did in The Godfather unless you control all of those moving and non-moving parts.

The good news is that it doesn't have to as it can still look "nice" and be exactly what you need but you just have to manage your expectations, especially as a one man operation.

The better news is that if you do want it to look like The Godfather then there has never been a better time to be able to do that than now due to the accessibility of equipment.

But the rest of it in terms of controlling and creating that image before it gets to your incredibly affordable sensor, and the graft that goes with it, remains the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concept of "cinematic" image dictates high end cinema industry. There, I think, you have to recognize turning point of your question. Trying to run out of DR limitation of (unnatural contrasty) consumer cameras, lowlow budget indie creators - which predominate here at forum -  tend to prefer mellow look of film cameras, often to the level that IMO look retro bizarre. But modern cinema prefers and dictates more and more absolutely clean image as standard that, here in our popular pejorative translation, often looks "too-sharp" or "video-ish".

I think that Lubezki nicely summarized that turning point regarding challenge that he experienced:

"When I signed on to do The Revenant, I wanted to do all the day scenes on film, just because of the high dynamic range, and I wanted to do all the dusk and night scenes with a digital camera. That's because the digital cameras are more sensitive to light. They can see more in the shadows, and you can push them a bit. For example, let's say that Arri says their camera is ISO 800 native. You can shoot it at IS0 1600 and there's still no noise. You're able to shoot scenes at night with firelight, and you can capture the stars and the Aurora Borealis in the night sky - things that film couldn’t do.

I started doing a lot of tests while we were rehearsing the movie, and every time I went back to the lab to see the results, the images I was capturing with the digital cameras were more interesting to me because they had less noise or no noise at all. It was like opening a window for the audience to get them immersed in this world, whereas film still had that poetic or romantic look, and the grain and texture was making the world of The Revenantlook more romanticized. It wasn't really allowing me to get immersed into the world of these trappers the way the digital cameras did.

Little by little I realized that I didn't want to shoot the movie on film. For a middle-aged cinematographer who’s been shooting for so many years - that's a very hard call. It's like suddenly saying to a musician “You know, forget about your incredible piano, you're going to play this concert with a Minimoog.” It's heart-breaking, but the images spoke for themselves..."

In result, compare his nature image-depicting of The Revenant with that of, say, Almereida's in Heaven's days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kye said:
  • Depending on the aesthetic you want you can film at 23.976 fps, or less.  Ideally you would film at a rate that varies to simulate the camera operator turning a handle, but even the most expensive cinema cameras still lack this feature, even in 2019, it's madness but it's reality

This is one of the reasons why the GH5 is so great. You can set it to 10 fps and it will also remove the audio automatically so that you don't have to do it in post. Truly cinematic results

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skin tones that are exposed properly with soft light combined with everything else in the shot being exposed well. Most cameras have natural and nice color if exposed properly. Another thing is using quality light. A quality light source that isn't a mix of different temperatures. Make sure your light isn't being polluted by reflections that cause different color tints from a wall or the grass or whatever might be polluting your shot. I am not saying things can't be done in a cheaper quicker way, but that certainly isn't hollywood. Color correction is really only needed when things get f'ed up on set. 



There are exceptions like the Revanent mentioned above, but that's few and far between. Documentaries are certainly different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cinematic color is a color scheme that thematically complements the story, and implementing that color scheme in the lighting, set design, and color correction, and then remaining consistent about those choices throughout the movie.

It doesn't matter what you pick. Dark and gritty (original Blade Runner). Bright and bubbly (Grand Budapest Hotel). Harshly dry and brown (Once Upon a Time in the West). Rich but artificial (In the Mood for Love). Soft and painterly (Barry Lyndon). Different color scheme for each location (Fellowship of the Ring). Just pick something that resonates with the story, explore it thoroughly, make it consistent and cohesive, and carry through from script to edit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing people chase after a lot is the film look which I don't think is always synonymous with Cinema. I believe people often associate film with expensive now, because well it is or at least its much more of a process than shooting on a hybrid camera and popping in an SD card. I've seen some cool digital stuff that emulates an old film look like 8mm or 16mm, but not necessarily a look you'd see at a theater. 

I saw one of the original film copies of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban recently at an art theater. It looked really vintage due to the film not being in perfect condition. Definitely what you'd call a film look. I remember seeing the movie on blueray a year or so ago, where I am sure they mastered it from a mint film copy. Needless to say I had no idea it was shot on film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cinematic look is defined when you're a teenager by the attributes that your favourite films had and the camera that your dad had didn't have.

All the millennial on YT wanting that cinematic look aren't romanticising the film look because they're too young to remember it - it was already digital when they were teenagers.

In 15 years time that cinematic look will be the 80D with 10mm lens because that's what Casey Neistat was using when they were growing up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kye said:

The cinematic look is defined when you're a teenager by the attributes that your favourite films had and the camera that your dad had didn't have.

All the millennial on YT wanting that cinematic look aren't romanticising the film look because they're too young to remember it - it was already digital when they were teenagers.

In 15 years time that cinematic look will be the 80D with 10mm lens because that's what Casey Neistat was using when they were growing up.

I think YouTube and cinema are a very different thing though. I still say there is really not a difference between modern film and digital, at least not a noticeable one after processing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I think YouTube and cinema are a very different thing though. I still say there is really not a difference between modern film and digital, at least not a noticeable one after processing. 

YT and cinema are different, but considering that "cinema" doesn't mean "big room" it means "video with your favourite famous people in it" or "video with your favourite stories".  Considering that Pewdiepie has 20 billion views on his channel, and many kids watch hours of YT a day, you can't say that this isn't having an impact on what they think.  My daughter doesn't care about going to see Rhianna in concert, but she just about turned herself inside-out to see Shawn Mendes (who got his start on social media) and when he came on stage she cried like people did when they saw The Beatles.  

Quote

Through its Partner Program, YouTube also rewards uploaders of popular videos with a share from the revenues resulted from advertisement on their page. This, paired with the fact that many users of the video sharing platform tend to have favorite channels that they go back to regularly, has given rise to another phenomenon: the rise of YouTube celebrities. Although some of them, such as Justin Bieber, were discovered on the website, but moved on to real life stardom, many others have maintained YouTube as their primary platform of delivering content and staying in contact with fans.

Source.

Peoples music tastes tend to be most heavily influenced by what they're consuming at 13 (for women) and 14 (for men) (source) and the same mechanism is likely to be the same for other content.

Quote

Music lights these sparks of neural activity in everybody. But in young people, the spark turns into a fireworks show. Between the ages of 12 and 22, our brains undergo rapid neurological development—and the music we love during that decade seems to get wired into our lobes for good. When we make neural connections to a song, we also create a strong memory trace that becomes laden with heightened emotion, thanks partly to a surfeit of pubertal growth hormones. These hormones tell our brains that everything is incredibly important—especially the songs that form the soundtrack to our teenage dreams (and embarrassments).

Source.

We don't have TV in our house, and we don't listen to the radio, we have Netflix and YT and that's how the kids consume content.  Their heroes are youtubers and YouTubers aren't filming with Alexas in RAW or on film, they're filming with RX100s and GH5s and their phones.  Some are doing it with great lighting, nice production design, nice lenses and the rest, but not RAW, not 12-bit colour, and not with filters and careful adjustment of digital sharpening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, kye said:

We don't have TV in our house, and we don't listen to the radio, we have Netflix and YT and that's how the kids consume content.  Their heroes are youtubers and YouTubers aren't filming with Alexas in RAW or on film, they're filming with RX100s and GH5s and their phones.  Some are doing it with great lighting, nice production design, nice lenses and the rest, but not RAW, not 12-bit colour, and not with filters and careful adjustment of digital sharpening.

Yeah it is a Whole new world out there now. What was in in the past is just about to get gobbled up with just regular kind of people, doing stuff only a Hollywood studio could do 10, 15 years ago. Heck and a lot of it using a Smartphone. I really doubt any of us has a real clue where it will even lead 10 years from now, let alone 20. I bet it won't be something controlled by powerful people like it is now, but everyone that wants to can get a piece of the pie. Tech is moving at a mind bogging pace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah it is a Whole new world out there now. What was in in the past is just about to get gobbled up with just regular kind of people, doing stuff only a Hollywood studio could do 10, 15 years ago. Heck and a lot of it using a Smartphone. I really doubt any of us has a real clue where it will even lead 10 years from now, let alone 20. I bet it won't be something controlled by powerful people like it is now, but everyone that wants to can get a piece of the pie. Tech is moving at a mind bogging pace.

There is a way of thinking that I find particularly useful for this stuff:

  1. Think of a company / industry / or whatever that is/was big
  2. Think of the problem they solved or the value they gave customers
  3. Think of how you'd solve that problem with todays (or tomorrows) tech
  4. Think about what that means for that company / industry

It sounds simple, but you'd be surprised how many Wall St big business folks can't do it.  A few examples:

  1. Newspapers
  2. They curated and delivered content to people
  3. The internet now delivers content for free, but doesn't do a great job at curating it (fake news)
  4. The result?  Newspapers are all screwed.  Completely predictable, yet most didn't predict it.

 

 

  1. Record labels and record shops / motion picture industry and cinemas
  2. Curated artists, invested in making big budget productions up front (taking on risk), marketed the results, and distributed them
  3. Three scenarios:
    1. Don't curate or invest, just distribute = YouTube
    2. Curate and invest and distribute via internet = Netflix
    3. Curate and invest but attempt to monopolise distribution = illegal file-sharing
  4. Perfectly predictable (and the RIAA are basically just making tits of themselves fighting a non-winnable battle).  The musicians YT was Mp3.com and the musicians Netflix hasn't been worked out yet, but big companies are fighting over it (apple, amazon, etc)

etc etc.

In terms of the motion picture industry, the major innovations go like this:

  • invention of motion pictuers
  • Addition of sound
  • Colour
  • Home theatre (no longer only in cinemas)
  • Virtual reality
  • Interactive VR
  • Interactive AR
  • Potentially some kind of direct neurological connection after that, but it's still a kind of VR/AR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kye said:

YT and cinema are different, but considering that "cinema" doesn't mean "big room" it means "video with your favourite famous people in it" or "video with your favourite stories".  Considering that Pewdiepie has 20 billion views on his channel, and many kids watch hours of YT a day, you can't say that this isn't having an impact on what they think.  My daughter doesn't care about going to see Rhianna in concert, but she just about turned herself inside-out to see Shawn Mendes (who got his start on social media) and when he came on stage she cried like people did when they saw The Beatles.  

Source.

Peoples music tastes tend to be most heavily influenced by what they're consuming at 13 (for women) and 14 (for men) (source) and the same mechanism is likely to be the same for other content.

Source.

We don't have TV in our house, and we don't listen to the radio, we have Netflix and YT and that's how the kids consume content.  Their heroes are youtubers and YouTubers aren't filming with Alexas in RAW or on film, they're filming with RX100s and GH5s and their phones.  Some are doing it with great lighting, nice production design, nice lenses and the rest, but not RAW, not 12-bit colour, and not with filters and careful adjustment of digital sharpening.

True though I don't think people will tire of seeing expensively produced movies. People like youtube but they also like watching movies. Theaters may die out do to being inconvenient and expensive, but things like Netflix which is just movies from home, will always be around. 

I agree I like the music I grew up with. I grew up on older movies including a lot of black and white. I love modern film too though. I don't love the look of cheap content as it looks cheap. Sharpening is a substitution for real image detail. I assume cheap cameras and phones will ditch that look once they are able to actually shoot at high resolution. 

I guess VR stuff could take over, seems pretty gimmicky though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...