Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | General Gear-talk | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2012 · Movie Film look
  
 
bushwacker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Movie Film look


Hello guys...

I got question... what do I need in order to achieve a movie film look using a full frame DSLR. When I say movie film look, I meant most of the movies especially involving people, they have say sligthly defocused backgrounds were you can still recognize the figure.

Are they all 50mm set at open aperture?.... or what filmakers use for this kind of effect-- i mean almost all movies are like that with no visible distortions even when shot close to the subject.



Aug 19, 2012 at 05:09 PM
bushwacker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Movie Film look


here's an example:



and this one




Aug 19, 2012 at 05:14 PM
arthurb
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Movie Film look


It's just shallow depth of field. To get a cinematic feel you will need to set your camera to manual, set the shutter speed to about 1/50th second and the frame rate to 25fps ( it may be 1/60th & 30fps if you are in the US ). The lens aperture should be wide open and if you need less light then use ND filters. There are user profiles that you can download and load into your camera in user def. 1,2,3 to enhance the cinematic feel.


Aug 19, 2012 at 05:20 PM
Hammy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Movie Film look


In addition...yes, a fast lens, wide or nearly wide open along with a full frame sensor. You'll get a more pronounced DOF with 50/1.2 on a 5DMark2 or 3 than on a 7D - or similarily a 100-400 at f4 even a full frame body.

I've shot some video on my 7D with my 200/1.8 and 135/2 and gotten quite a bit of DOF background blur, but on a full frame sensor, it would be even more, not to mention a more open lens.



Aug 19, 2012 at 06:08 PM
bushwacker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Movie Film look


here's another example were the background is blurry but recognizable.... this is the effect I like, I dont like the background that is really blurred.

do you guys think this is shot at wide aperture?




Aug 19, 2012 at 07:25 PM
Hammy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Movie Film look


That looks like two different shots.

The background has the main light source coming from behind... at a slight angle, but only illuminating the far sides of the faces of the oncoming riders and horses.
The main subject has more than half his face lit and on his left shoulder, either some backlighting rollover (which should be on his right shoulder) or left over 'artifacting' from extraction.

Regardless, even if it was done in a unified shot from one lens, the beauty of lenses is the ability to stop them down (given enough light) to get whatever desired DOF that you desire....if you start with a wide enough aperture to begin with.

If you're shooting with a slow lens to begin with, you'll only be able to do so much: an f/4 lens can never open up to be f/1.4 - whereas an f/1.4 lens can easily be stopped down to f/4 is needed/desired.

If you really want to get into good cinema lenses, then you'll want to look at these where you'll find name brand primes range from $4,000-$10,000 and zooms can cost you a really nice car: $45,000. What you get on these lenses are verrrryyy wide focus travel (300°), with gears for motorized focus travel and probably some of the finest glass this side of lenscrafters



Aug 19, 2012 at 08:22 PM
justruss
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Movie Film look


To add to the points already given: You realize that any mainstream film you see has gone through CRAZY amounts of post, CGI, grading, etc.... all of which can change the qualities you are discussing.

And each shot is meticulously set up regarding lighting, framing, aperture/focus choices, etc. Shots are taken more than one way, to see what works best.

To reproduce the look of a $200 million production (or even a low budget $50 million) production on your own is not likely.




Aug 21, 2012 at 10:12 AM
justruss
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Movie Film look


If you've ever been on a professional set for a mainstream film you'd see how many people are involved for what can be couple-second long shots. And how many takes are involved.


Aug 21, 2012 at 10:13 AM
JohnJ
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Movie Film look


Shooting lenses wide open will not normally give you the kind of bokeh that the OP has demonstrated, ie fairly smooth. Most fast lenses, say F1.2-F1.4, or slower for longer lenses, have a funky or distracting bokeh at such apertures and often need to be stopped down to get smooth and non-distracting bokeh. The exact aperture required depends very much on the lens, sensor size and distance to the subject.

It's worth noting that the lenses used for cine work, such as Zeiss Ultra Primes for example, are designed specifically for very smooth bokeh, much more so than most photographic lenses.

This stuff is Photography 101, not rocket science. I'm not having a go at the OP but I often see spectacular post processing/editing from people who are only vaguely competent at the photographic (capture) stage. I think that the actual 'photography', ie the bit involving the camera, has become so automated and easy that people often don't feel a need to actually learn about it or many other techniques. It seems that most of the 'photography' happens at a computer now. That's what 'photography' is today.



Aug 21, 2012 at 12:33 PM
S Dilworth
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Movie Film look


If you're strictly talking about bokeh, JohnJ has it right. Few fast lenses look like this wide open. Overcorrection of spherical aberration typically precludes it.

Besides, your full-frame SLR has a larger frame than the film gate in a movie camera, so you'll need to stop down farther to equalise the depth of field.

But I suspect you want the whole look rather than just the bokeh, and as justruss said, that's just not possible without an enormous investment in knowledge and equipment. We're talking years of study for each of: set design, costume design, makeup, lighting, directing, composition, post-production including colour grading, lighting, lighting, etc.

Even the most-talented individuals can't learn all of this to a high level, which is one reason Hollywood movies are made by enormous teams of specialists. If your interests were unusually wide-ranging you might be able to master the basics by the time you're 63, assuming you're in your twenties.

If you're just interested in this very specific look for a still photo, that's much more attainable – though prepare yourself for a long journey if you're starting from the position that a magic lens might make things look like this. Here's a lighting glossary of some terms you'll need to become familiar with over the next few years.

(I exaggerate only slightly. And I repeat lighting above because, as usual, that's the key. A pun, a veritable pun!)



Aug 21, 2012 at 04:50 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



bushwacker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Movie Film look


johnj and sdilworth:

let's exclude lighting... what I am talking about is the bokeh...

I've noticed that on movie films almost most of them the bokeh or let's say the background is always recognizable you still see figures that your brain still can recognize what the object is, but in a way it still blurry to a certain degree.

That's what I am trying to achieve... I tried very wide opening and there I obliterate everything the background is gone.... tried closing up, background too sharp... and then there's the distance--- my subject and backgrounds blended together-- no separation.

what I am asking here is are movie makers using a specialize lens that a regular DSLR lens cannot replicate? or it's just me.... not knowing enough.

pls enlighten.



Aug 25, 2012 at 03:17 PM
bushwacker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Movie Film look


here's one of my favorites... background is blurry but recognizable.




Aug 25, 2012 at 03:49 PM
JohnJ
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Movie Film look


bushwacker wrote:
...what I am asking here is are movie makers using a specialize lens that a regular DSLR lens cannot replicate? or it's just me.... not knowing enough.

pls enlighten.


It's a bit of both. like I said in my first reply;

JohnJ wrote:
..It's worth noting that the lenses used for cine work, such as Zeiss Ultra Primes for example, are designed specifically for very smooth bokeh, much more so than most photographic lenses...


Cooke, Panaflex (I think they make their own lenses, not sure), Leica and Zeiss make cine lenses of the highest standards.

http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/products/products.html
http://www.zeiss.com/cine

This doesn't mean that you can't acheive a similar effect but if you are using a lens with harsh bokeh in the first place then it will make things harder. I suggest you setup an experiment and test your lens (or lenses) at each aperture, make notes, and see which lens/apertures will give you the desired effect. Distances will always be a factor but thats where experience and data/informatiion helps.




Aug 25, 2012 at 11:45 PM
Smiert Spionam
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Movie Film look


bushwacker wrote:

here's one of my favorites... background is blurry but recognizable.

http://thedivareview.com/mp012-023-DHP-v001.jpg



As others have suggested, the basic lens/aperture combination to reproduce this kind of depth of field is pretty simple. Without agonizing over it, I wouldn't be surprised to learn it's a normal-ish to slightly tele focal length, down a stop or so, at a camera-subject distance of 5-8 feet. There's much more to the shot, of course -- not least the heavy digital processing that makes all of 300 look like a video game. Lighting is crucial to the subject separation, too. It can be very instructive to try and reconstruct in your mind how a scene is shot. Here, the most obvious light sources (with the camera at 6:00 on a clock face) are probably a moderately diffused key above eye level at around 4:00, and a more direct skim/backlight coming in from around 2:00. Plenty of other sources, too, but those are the most immediately identifiable ones. In this shot, the light does as much to separate the subject from the background as the limited depth of field does. Lena Headey's cheekbones help, too.


Edited on Aug 26, 2012 at 01:44 PM · View previous versions



Aug 26, 2012 at 04:23 AM
Smiert Spionam
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Movie Film look


Also, re. the difference between motion pictures and still photography: the moving image provides a great deal more contextual information about spatial relationships, so what is clear in a film might be confusing in a still shot. There's nothing magic about the lenses, other than their very high quality and close tolerances. Part of what they're paying for, as John suggests, is very high consistency in a lens' look across its aperture range -- but ultimately a DP has to know his/her lenses just as well as we do. They've all got strengths and weaknesses.


Aug 26, 2012 at 04:32 AM
Jabberwockt
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Movie Film look


DOF is one part of it and lighting is another. Many movies are shot using an anamorphic lens which can give the bokeh a very distinct oval look. Bokeh balls tend to be vertical ovals, but also the manner in which the bokeh blurs is different vertically versus horizontally. Flare and sunstars also take on a very different and distinct characteristics. I.E. long horizontal sunstars and oval flares.

Finally most movies have been colored. I think this is a big part of the movie look. By this I mean that a distinct color pattern has been applied to give a certain look. Bladerunner, although extremely old, is a good example, because there is an overall teal cast yet most people who watch the movie never notice unless they are looking for it specifically. In the OP's second example, whites are colored blue in the lab coat, in the photo of the lady, her skin is colored bronze. In fact, pick almost any big screen movie you can think of and look hard at some stills, there is usually some coloring applied.

Can the look be replicated in a still? I think so, but only with a good deal time and effort.



Nov 29, 2012 at 09:30 PM
sjms
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Movie Film look


in all these images it is a combination of factors:
1- DOF control (exposure/time)
2- proper Lighting for each individuals mark (area)
3- in some cases post production manipulation

Definition and proper use of an anamorphic format
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_lens
T-stop (used on pretty much all cinema lenses instead of F-stop
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-stop#T-stop





http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/products/fiveilens_specs.html



Dec 03, 2012 at 01:27 PM
peter_n
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Movie Film look


Smiert Spionam wrote:
Without agonizing over it, I wouldn't be surprised to learn it's a normal-ish to slightly tele focal length, down a stop or so, at a camera-subject distance of 5-8 feet.


Exactly. You do need a very high quality lens, many of the best cine lenses are made by Zeiss and they and Leica make pretty good still photography lenses too.

The pic below shows selective focus, where you can use your shooting position to blur both in front of and behind the main subject. This was taken in natural light slanting in from the windows in the back. It was taken using a Leica 90mm lens on an MP body with an aperture of f4 at a distance of 8-10ft. The film used was Tri-X.







Dec 03, 2012 at 04:44 PM
farski
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Movie Film look


Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but also keep in mind that when your isolating a subject, if either they or the camera move *keeping* them in focus is a real challenge. That's why camera people an assistant camera people get paid to do what they do; they are really good at pulling focus and tracking movement. Not to mention marks are measure out and the camera operators know where actors will be and when, and the follow focuses on the rigs are marked or have stops to help the focus puller make sure they are keeping things in focus.


Dec 11, 2012 at 10:09 PM





FM Forums | General Gear-talk | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password