Great Video! I have been searching for and experimenting to find the answer to "What Makes a Film Look Like a Film?" for many years. I have touched on it by accident now and then but I can't stay in it. I agree that it isn't equipment or any after effects or any single technique but a combination of techniques done very well.
Honestly, what people call “the film look” boils down to two things: lighting and color grading. For some reason, no one takes those into account as much when starting out, especially color grading. Myself included. We kinda think that films look that good because of the camera and its settings, not because of what happens next.
Pretty much! I'm was very guilty of that as well, focusing on getting a cinema camera, only to realise that it didn't make me a better DP. Now I focus on trying to actually tell a story through my cinematography.
I do think it's not that easy! It is more about the distinction between "Person with a Camera" or magical screen into another world. In reality shows you feel and know there is a person with a camera, while in a movie you don't see the picture in your tv, you see the reality of the characters in the movie. This, i think, boils down to time / continuity, and angles / framing: If you are only watching one take, it feels like someone took their phone and filmed a domestic dispute, but if the camera jumps around, Shot/Reverse Shot etc, but the story stays continuous, you don't think about the camera but about the action. (Which is quite weird as the camera is actually more involved than in a phone recording). Similarly, if your camera flies down from space into a characters face, it is unrealistic, making suspension of disbelief easy, whereas camera shots which are obviously human (shoulder, tripod, handheld moving) it takes you right out of it (okay, less so tripod, but the idea stands.) (That's also why no movie ever had undiegetic handheld motion while conserving cinematic feel)
@@4crafters597 Yeah, but what you’re talking about has to do with editing and flow. Not “how to make something look cinematic”. You’re merging a lot of different things that need to be there to put a film together anyway.
@@alexman378 Yeah but my point is the cinematic look is color grading and aspect ratio, yes. But even without those two you can differentiate a short film /student project from a feature production and that necessarily has to do with different things, which, in my opinion, are cutting and framing.
@@4crafters597 Not really, because if the editing is fantastic but the look is bad, you can still tell it’s amateurish. Mediocre editing is harder to spot, especially as a casual viewer, than a bad looking film.
One thing that would have really added a nice twist to the video (which was very good, by the way) is explaining that the look is often intertwined with the sound. You can take a total trash heap of cinematography, add quality sound design, and bada bing bada boom you've already got a massive upgrade in the audiences' perception of how "filmic" your movie really is.
Glad you liked it Great idea! Sound didn't even cross my mind when I was writing the video, I could have at least mentioned how you can have bad cinematography and good sound, but not good cinematography and bad sound. I'll definitely note this down just in case I make a video surrounding this topic again!
Equipment does matter, but it doesn't have to be expensive. For me, the film looks associated with these two: 1) Large aperture lens for a soft, deep image 2) 24fps @ 180º shutter Everything else is a matter of taste. Aspect ratio, anamorphic optics, and film grain would add to a film's taste. And good composition, lights, color grading, and sound just make it more professional
Thats a misconception you have there: Most films are shot at a working aperture of T4.0-T5.6 (On a Fullframe Sensor) Videographers try to tell you, that you need to shoot as wide open as possible, but thats just not true.
yrah- the upstage Lighting - If you want to know more about taht - for people who don't know him - the Wandering DP is the master in teaching this :D - Love his patreon breakdowns!
Great commentary. Speaking of Danny Gevirtz. I've been subbed and watching his videos for a long time. His work is quite impressive and inspirational. I am equally grateful for finding your channel. You too inspire and inform us through your videos. This one in particular was very clever and useful.
Talent is always what makes an image look "cinematic," not your gear. What a DP does is part "art," and part "craft." One without the other is a fail. My suggestion to aspiring DPs, is to start paying more attention to what professional DPs say about ART, and less about what amateurs say is "craft." That will take you much further in developing your skills.
You keep mentioning letterboxing, but this is not really the case. Many films are shot on anamorphic, the destretching of the image creates the wide aspect ratio and lens characteristics associated with cinema. Sure, you can letterbox your image that was shot on a spherical lens but the effect is completely different.
I mainly said it as a joke as it's a really popular thing for newer filmmakers to do. Of course, you aren't going to get the same effect by just cropping a spherical lens, but most newcomers aren't going to have access to even the cheapest anamorphic lenses.
What makes a film look like a film? The suspension of disbelief of what is not real to become real as a believable story to get lost in. The gear, as you rightly say, is not important, but understanding what it can do is crucial to the success of any film.
What an amazing way to put it! The gear really isn't important, your right in the fact that understanding it is crucial, but I really wanted to get across the fact that it really doesn't matter.
@@AngusDaviesDP Yes, you are right, the gear doesn’t matter. It is possible to make extremely complex beautiful visual narratives with the simplest of equipment, because the understanding of the equipment is both complex and beautiful. The result mirrors that understanding. I must write all this down….. :)
Great point! I didn't even think of it like that when writing the video. I think it's going to become harder to even use that to differ a movie from other content though, especially with the rise of mini-series'
Thanks! I get that, but it's something that I've come to realise myself, as well as being told by big people in the industry. When I first started out the first thing I was told was to not get caught up in equipment because no one really thinks too much about it, you use what's best for the job and that's it. Depending on the project he might, I haven't spoken to him so I don't know his true thoughts but I imagine he goes off what his DP thinks is best.
It is about equipment. An iPhone has high resolution with a nice lens. Equipment does matter. Shoot in 8 mm film and you will see the difference. Look at the dream sequence in La Bamba. I spoke to the cinematographer of the film in film school. Equipment really does matter. Equipment really does matter. Equipment really does matter. Equipment really does matter. Equipment really does matter. Equipment really does matter. Equipment really does matter. Unfortunately, you don't know anything about film or movies. I reject your film theory.
I see you lack critical thinking You will see a difference from an iPhone to 8mm film, of course you will, you’ll also see one from an iPhone to an Alexa, DXL2, any other cinema camera. But that doesn’t mean you can’t envoke the same feeling. With any amount of competence in colour grading you should be able to alter you’re image in a million different ways. Maybe back in your day it was one or the other, but times have changed.
@@AngusDaviesDP I don't lack critical thinking, that's my profession. Equipment matters. I attended USC Film School and was the best student in my class. I don't agree with your composition theory. You are a hack; I earn more money than you do. And I make better films than you do. Don't you ever judge me again! I am a critical thinker and you are a super-hack. There is a reason you only have 412 thumbs up.
@@AngusDaviesDP Why do you think directors shoot in 65 mm instead of other mediums. Equipment matters. Look at Star Wars Episodes IV, V, and VI compared to Episodes I, II, and III. It's night and day.
Great Video! I have been searching for and experimenting to find the answer to "What Makes a Film Look Like a Film?" for many years. I have touched on it by accident now and then but I can't stay in it. I agree that it isn't equipment or any after effects or any single technique but a combination of techniques done very well.
Honestly, what people call “the film look” boils down to two things: lighting and color grading. For some reason, no one takes those into account as much when starting out, especially color grading. Myself included. We kinda think that films look that good because of the camera and its settings, not because of what happens next.
Pretty much! I'm was very guilty of that as well, focusing on getting a cinema camera, only to realise that it didn't make me a better DP. Now I focus on trying to actually tell a story through my cinematography.
I do think it's not that easy! It is more about the distinction between "Person with a Camera" or magical screen into another world. In reality shows you feel and know there is a person with a camera, while in a movie you don't see the picture in your tv, you see the reality of the characters in the movie. This, i think, boils down to time / continuity, and angles / framing: If you are only watching one take, it feels like someone took their phone and filmed a domestic dispute, but if the camera jumps around, Shot/Reverse Shot etc, but the story stays continuous, you don't think about the camera but about the action. (Which is quite weird as the camera is actually more involved than in a phone recording). Similarly, if your camera flies down from space into a characters face, it is unrealistic, making suspension of disbelief easy, whereas camera shots which are obviously human (shoulder, tripod, handheld moving) it takes you right out of it (okay, less so tripod, but the idea stands.) (That's also why no movie ever had undiegetic handheld motion while conserving cinematic feel)
@@4crafters597 Yeah, but what you’re talking about has to do with editing and flow. Not “how to make something look cinematic”. You’re merging a lot of different things that need to be there to put a film together anyway.
@@alexman378 Yeah but my point is the cinematic look is color grading and aspect ratio, yes. But even without those two you can differentiate a short film /student project from a feature production and that necessarily has to do with different things, which, in my opinion, are cutting and framing.
@@4crafters597 Not really, because if the editing is fantastic but the look is bad, you can still tell it’s amateurish. Mediocre editing is harder to spot, especially as a casual viewer, than a bad looking film.
One thing that would have really added a nice twist to the video (which was very good, by the way) is explaining that the look is often intertwined with the sound. You can take a total trash heap of cinematography, add quality sound design, and bada bing bada boom you've already got a massive upgrade in the audiences' perception of how "filmic" your movie really is.
Glad you liked it
Great idea! Sound didn't even cross my mind when I was writing the video, I could have at least mentioned how you can have bad cinematography and good sound, but not good cinematography and bad sound.
I'll definitely note this down just in case I make a video surrounding this topic again!
Equipment does matter, but it doesn't have to be expensive.
For me, the film looks associated with these two:
1) Large aperture lens for a soft, deep image
2) 24fps @ 180º shutter
Everything else is a matter of taste. Aspect ratio, anamorphic optics, and film grain would add to a film's taste. And good composition, lights, color grading, and sound just make it more professional
Thats a misconception you have there: Most films are shot at a working aperture of T4.0-T5.6 (On a Fullframe Sensor)
Videographers try to tell you, that you need to shoot as wide open as possible, but thats just not true.
yrah- the upstage Lighting - If you want to know more about taht - for people who don't know him - the Wandering DP is the master in teaching this :D - Love his patreon breakdowns!
His channel is a goldmine for cinematography breakdowns, he goes into so much detail it's unbelievable.
this video is much higher quality than i expected! good editing and you sound professional. good stuff man keep it up
Glad you enjoyed!
Thanks so much!
Good luck and best wishes doing what you love. You are very fortunate in that aspect.
Thank you so much!
My pleasure!
Great commentary. Speaking of Danny Gevirtz. I've been subbed and watching his videos for a long time. His work is quite impressive and inspirational. I am equally grateful for finding your channel. You too inspire and inform us through your videos. This one in particular was very clever and useful.
Thanks! Yeah his content is amazing, I love that style of video though.
Ah thanks, glad I could be helpful!
Hey man this was a great video, but well made and nicely editted, it's something I've always thought about but haven't really looked into, keep it up!
Thanks!
Glad you are liking the content. Will do!
Lighting and color grading, you're welcome
Talent is always what makes an image look "cinematic," not your gear. What a DP does is part "art," and part "craft." One without the other is a fail. My suggestion to aspiring DPs, is to start paying more attention to what professional DPs say about ART, and less about what amateurs say is "craft." That will take you much further in developing your skills.
Subscribed! Great video, thanks!
You keep mentioning letterboxing, but this is not really the case. Many films are shot on anamorphic, the destretching of the image creates the wide aspect ratio and lens characteristics associated with cinema. Sure, you can letterbox your image that was shot on a spherical lens but the effect is completely different.
I mainly said it as a joke as it's a really popular thing for newer filmmakers to do. Of course, you aren't going to get the same effect by just cropping a spherical lens, but most newcomers aren't going to have access to even the cheapest anamorphic lenses.
soooooo good. Thank you.
Glad you like it!
What makes a film look like a film? The suspension of disbelief of what is not real to become real as a believable story to get lost in. The gear, as you rightly say, is not important, but understanding what it can do is crucial to the success of any film.
What an amazing way to put it!
The gear really isn't important, your right in the fact that understanding it is crucial, but I really wanted to get across the fact that it really doesn't matter.
@@AngusDaviesDP Yes, you are right, the gear doesn’t matter. It is possible to make extremely complex beautiful visual narratives with the simplest of equipment, because the understanding of the equipment is both complex and beautiful. The result mirrors that understanding. I must write all this down….. :)
At 1:24 what movie is that?
Transformers
Can i use this video to answer WHAT CONTRIBUTES TO A FILM LOOK?
not all movies have good story, even the big ones. i'd say, its "intentionally" what differs a movie from other content.
Great point! I didn't even think of it like that when writing the video.
I think it's going to become harder to even use that to differ a movie from other content though, especially with the rise of mini-series'
0:02 secrect
0:02.5 to getting
nice upload, but to say that equipment doesn't matter... sounds like a platitude. Do you really think someone like Dennis Villeneuve would agree?
Thanks!
I get that, but it's something that I've come to realise myself, as well as being told by big people in the industry. When I first started out the first thing I was told was to not get caught up in equipment because no one really thinks too much about it, you use what's best for the job and that's it. Depending on the project he might, I haven't spoken to him so I don't know his true thoughts but I imagine he goes off what his DP thinks is best.
It is about equipment. An iPhone has high resolution with a nice lens.
Equipment does matter.
Shoot in 8 mm film and you will see the difference.
Look at the dream sequence in La Bamba.
I spoke to the cinematographer of the film in film school.
Equipment really does matter.
Equipment really does matter.
Equipment really does matter.
Equipment really does matter.
Equipment really does matter.
Equipment really does matter.
Equipment really does matter.
Unfortunately, you don't know anything about film or movies.
I reject your film theory.
I see you lack critical thinking
You will see a difference from an iPhone to 8mm film, of course you will, you’ll also see one from an iPhone to an Alexa, DXL2, any other cinema camera. But that doesn’t mean you can’t envoke the same feeling.
With any amount of competence in colour grading you should be able to alter you’re image in a million different ways.
Maybe back in your day it was one or the other, but times have changed.
@@AngusDaviesDP I don't lack critical thinking, that's my profession.
Equipment matters.
I attended USC Film School and was the best student in my class.
I don't agree with your composition theory.
You are a hack; I earn more money than you do.
And I make better films than you do.
Don't you ever judge me again!
I am a critical thinker and you are a super-hack.
There is a reason you only have 412 thumbs up.
@@AngusDaviesDP Why do you think directors shoot in 65 mm instead of other mediums.
Equipment matters.
Look at Star Wars Episodes IV, V, and VI compared to Episodes I, II, and III. It's night and day.