What makes films look high-quality?

jaykhunter

Hey guys, I was watching Hatfields & McCoys last night, I noticed it was pretty high budget for what I expected from The History Channel. A few minutes into it I noticed that although the sets and costumes look fine, the show itself looks really cheap, relative to a big film. I watched Cowboys vs Aliens a few days ago (with a similar enough setting) and Hatfields looks pretty bad in comparison. Just looks-wise. Why is that? Both are shot in HD.





Above are two shots from very early on in each. I'm a casual movie-goer and so have no idea about this sort of technical thing, so I was hoping you guys could help me out. Please explain the difference why they look so different!

krudler

prob a bunch of factors, camera type, post production work, lenses, shooting method etc. I wouldnt have enough tech know how to explain it properly but a few posters on here know about lenses and stuff. most big movies, if not all, go through a lot of post production tinkering, with various colour corrections on skin tone, backgrounds etc, a tv show probably doesnt have the budget or resources for as much of this so may look just like how it was shot.

likes heres an example of what Fellowship of the Ring looks like uncorrected and graded, what we see as the finished product isnt how it looks on set, usually far from it. If you see something that has a really sylish look to it, say soemthing like Sucker Punch, or The Matrix, its got a ton of colour grading work gone into it.



there's some great apps on iphone for colour grading, ones called movie looks, it basically adds that tint to films that make them look higher budget, if i get time later I'll bang a quick test clip up on youtube

Sad Professor

You have to take into account the location that they shot in. Cowboys and Aliens was probably shot in Arizona or something, while I believe Hatfield was shot in Romania. The light wouldn't be the same.

Also, Cowboys & Aliens was shot on 35mm using anamorphic lenses, not HD. I don't how Hatfields & McCoys was shot, but they probably wanted it to look that way. That screenshot of Cowboys and Aliens looks digitally graded. In fact, they both do. As krudler points out, films can be digitally colour corrected to look whatever way the filmmakers want.

johnny_ultimate

Hell, there's no definitive answer to this, and any possible in-depth response would take thousands of words. The format and tech used is a biggie - a film shot on RED or ARRI Alexa is going to look better than one shot on a Sony EX1 or any of the earlier digital camera. Newer cameras also shoot in RAW, which allows ludicrous amounts of tweaking in post-production. Basically the same power you have to edit an image in Photoshop: changing everything from the iris to colour temp. Grading can make a flatly shot or mis-framed film look AAA with the right tools.

Money is another big one. The more control (and more people / resources) you have over sets and tech will make a helluva lot of difference. The talent behind the camera is a big one - your film is going to look better if it's shot by Roger Deakins. The more camera team you have - assistants, focus pullers, dolly grips, steadicam ops - the more you'll be able to do. If they know their medium, the results will be infinitely better.

2.35:1 aspect ratio and anamorphic lenses will make everything look slicker and more expensive on the big screen. Some directors, on the other hand, want that 'realistic', almost television look - Michael Mann, arguably, being one example with his digital fascination in Collateral and Miami Vice. Kelly Reichardt shoots her films in 4:3 to keep the focus on the characters and enhance the claustrophobia. The Artist used it to bring it technically in line with the old Hollywood standards (the Academy ratio).

And of course there's the problem of defining 'high-quality'. There are thousands of films whose grainy, grimy aesthetic is as technically impressive as the slickest Hollywood productions. To me, Enter The Void's astonishing twisting of the rules of cinematography makes it look more 'high-quality' than Cowboys and Aliens. Go to see Moonrise Kingdom for an example of how basic symmetry, composition, colour grading / temperature and camera movements (dollies, tracks, cranes) can make a film look like 100 million dollars.

krudler

I wont get a chance to do this on my own phone but its what Iwas talking about, this looks pretty damn good considering it was shot, colour graded and edited on a phone.

edit: actually it wasnt even colour corrected.

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

2.35:1 aspect ratio and anamorphic lenses will make everything look slicker and more expensive on the big screen. Some directors, on the other hand, want that 'realistic', almost television look - Michael Mann, arguably, being one example with his digital fascination in Collateral and Miami Vice. Kelly Reichardt shoots her films in 4:3 to keep the focus on the characters and enhance the claustrophobia. The Artist used it to bring it technically in line with the old Hollywood standards (the Academy ratio).

Mann uses the digital look brilliantly, even in the opening scene of Ali, where its a period piece in the 60's it has a handheld digital camera look and it works well.

frozenfrozen

Everything everyone else has said and the crop also gives the footage a very cinematic look. Also framerate, the piece on tv would be playing at more frames per second than the piece you saw in the cinema, which would have been playing at 24 frames per second, which gives everything lots of motion blur, and is what you would be used to seeing in the cinema.

jaykhunter

Thanks guys for your responses. I guess what i mean by "high quality" is "it looks like this cost a lot of money to produce" :P Em, can you explain 35mm and anamorphic lenses? Like is that just a higher quality film stock, and what are anamorphic lenses and how does that impact the way something's shot? (Also could u give examples of movies shot with it).

This might be an impossible question, but what lens would give the clearest, highest-res grime-free film? Is that the RED/ARRI one mentioned; like can u give a few examples an a ladder of quality maybe? Having stuff shot in 24fps must make everything a little more stoic. and Krudler that 'shot/edited on an iphone' is pretty incredible looking.

johnny_ultimate

35mm is just the way a film is shot and projected. Traditional film, as opposed to the new ARRI and RED cameras which are entirely digital. The ALEXA is the first time many cinematographers (Deakins included) have said the camera is pretty much the same quality as traditional film.

Anamorphic refers to a 'superwide' image, at a basic level. The Cowboy and Aliens pic is a fine example. Wikipedia will explain it to you better than I ever could: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format

As for lens? It's a big question. They determine how the image is going to look. There, at a very basic level, split into prime and zoom. Zoom lenses are ones that can, as the name suggests, zoom in and out of focal points. The quality takes a noticeable dip, however: you'll find them on camcorders, but they're only used in films for very specific reasons. A prime is much better quality lens but you can only shoot at one focal length or angle. A 20mm lens will shoot a very wide, distant shot: say a landscape. If you wanted to go in for an extreme close-up, you'd switch to 200mm, which gives you a much greater level of detail on a 'closer' object. I don't know if that makes sense? Basically depending on what you want to shoot (whether it's a room, a house or a face) you pick the lens that best suits. None are 'better' than the other: they all serve their purpose. Naturally, same makes and brands of lenses are better quality. I couldn't tell you which, though. There's further complications, of course. Again, I direct you to the people's encyclopedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_lens

Cattleforker

Compare the two shots posted by OP. One of the obvious differences is the width of the image. As said above, a longer frame gives asense of a bigger scale, and lends itself to more dramtic composition. the composition in the cowboys and Aliens one has a definite structure to it, while the other one is a little more mundane looking, the cowboys and aliens one is visually telling you something about whats happening in the story, while the other one isnt, its just two guys talking. as said already it really is a multitude of elements making a visually rich and powerfull picture.
For me this all ads up to one word, depth.
the frame from the aliens picture has depth to it, perspective depth, a depth of colours, diferent shades of light(a higher range of shades between the brightest and darkest area), isolating the actors from the background, the first image however is much more flat. It doesnt finish there though, the actors in the frame give you the strongest focal point, if they are good actors with a strong look, youve again got a more visually deeper picture. Sound as well is going to enhance that picture for you.
It is true though that the diference in camera or recording format is going to give you a better picture. They may have both been shot in HD, but the Cowboys and Aliens would have been shot on or recorded on a device that is capable of looking just like 35mm, if that device wasnt there, it would have been shot on 35mm film.
This brings us onto an issue that i think the OP was really talking about. The diference between HD cameras. The reason why some of these very big filmmakers are now choosing to shoot with digital cameras is because of something called Dynamic Range. If you look out your window, (given its day) youl notice that you can see detail up into the brightest part of the sky, while you can also see into the darkest part of the room your sitting in. If you take out your phone and point it out the window, yould notice it darkens the inside parts so that it can see into the bright areas of the sky. This shows that it cant handle the same height or depth of brightness as we can.
35mm film for so long has been the the closest recording format that could see as close to the what the human eye percieves in terms of brightness (luminance) range. Thats why it has become the gold standard over the years, thats to say, it became what we would describe as the movie look.
But now there are new digital cameras, that are capable of matching this Dynamic Range, as well as the depths in colour range as film. These cameras were mentioned already, The Arri Alexa, the Red Epic, and the Sony F65. These cameras are as cutting edge as digital motion pictures get, and the diference in them and other cameras being that they have a wider dynamic range.
Im hungover and blathering a bit, but i hope some of that helps answer the OP's query

Technocentral

Personally what makes films look the highest quality for me is 35mm celluloid, shot using Panavision Panaflex cameras with Primo anamorphic lenses, the ultimate achieved ever in picture aquistion I think. You will never get the warmth and quality using digital video that you get with proper film. HD is great for TV but 35mm projected in the cinema will never be beaten imo.

Cattleforker

The Op asked why one Hd image looked better than the other. Carefull this doesnt fall into the film vs. digital debate. I totally agree with you. just like to nip that in the bud

Technocentral

Cattleforker wrote: »

The Op asked why one Hd image looked better than the other. Carefull this doesnt fall into the film vs. digital debate. I totally agree with you. just like to nip that in the bud

Your right boss, I'm expecting a bollicking by the digital evangelists forthwith! Analogue forever!!

Cattleforker

Technocentral wrote: »

Your right boss, I'm expecting a bollicking by the digital evangelists forthwith! Analogue forever!!

Well just for the craic of it, i will say that I would argue with you over projection though, imo opinion, the Tree of Life, filmed in 35mm, looked so much better projected with a 2k digital projection, than it would have projected with 35mm, Ive never seen an image look so good. 35mm aquisition may not be dead yet, but 35mm projection is dust.

frozenfrozen

Just out of interest can the new iPad playback 24frames at 3k? Would be incredibly crisp looking if it can!

Technocentral

Cattleforker wrote: »

Well just for the craic of it, i will say that I would argue with you over projection though, imo opinion, the Tree of Life, filmed in 35mm, looked so much better projected with a 2k digital projection, than it would have projected with 35mm, Ive never seen an image look so good. 35mm aquisition may not be dead yet, but 35mm projection is dust.

Hate the way you can see the digital pixels in the projected image if your even relatively close to the screen though, as opposed to the lovely more natural grain that film has. Re: 2k, I would say that 4k should be the minimal rez for digital projection if I was to enter into a debate about digital which I won't. Of course as you say celluloid projection is dead, just like in the future books will be dead on paper, still, computer screens will never have the same beauty and simplicity of the oul books.

pickarooney

Which Oscar category does all the retouching work come under? I wonder how well voters can distinguish between the camerawork and the editing as to which is the more impressive job.

Cattleforker

at the minute i would say it is under Cinematography. Its interesting because grading is becoming more and more important, you may see a category forming for awarding of this growing craft yet. The cinematographer will always have a say in the final look and tweaking of such, but you are right to bring that issue up.

johnny_ultimate

Editing (as I interpret it) refers to the actually putting together of images. How long a shot lasts for, the speed and regularity of cuts etc... The editor may or may not do a very rough pass of a grade, but in general I'd consider their role as a storyteller rather than someone who defines the look of a film. TBH, I'd consider grading a much more 'technical process', where the professional works with the director or cinematographer to make the film look like they intended. The grader wouldn't have a hell of a lot of artistic input into it, in the majority of cases, except for informing what is and isn't possible. Still, a very skilled and vital technician. In fact, their main goal is almost to ensure you as a viewer don't know that they've been there, but rather to enhance and further realise the film's visual identity.

The cinematographer and director will both sit in at various junctures of the post-production process. An editor, for the most part, will do a rough cut without the director (based on both the director and production notes) and then the director will be brought in for the finer edits.

I watched Raging Bull last night and there's no finer film to examine in order to understand how it all comes together. Brilliant editing, production design, direction, cinematography etc... Just sitting back and trying to analyse a film like that really is the best way to get a grip on the 'process' and individual elements.

(just to chime in on the digital debate: there's not really any practical or artistic reason not to shoot in it these days, bar romanticism and nostalgia. Films that were shot as 35 or 70mm will always look best projected that way, no doubt about it. But you really can't underestimate how far the digital cameras have come)

bnt

I thought The Social Network was a great example of what can be done with digital these days. It was shot on Red cameras @ 4K but doesn't (to me) look obviously "digital". The opening credits, with Zuckerberg running across Harvard at night, would have required far more lighting to do on film, while the digital cameras could use mostly the "practical" lights of the location. Michael Mann does this too e.g. in Collateral he could get those spur-of-the-moment shots of coyotes wandering the LA streets at night. With standard film, night shots have to be li

I think the importance of lighting can not be understated, something that a great cinematographer uses to create a high quality result. Have a look at this short video, featuring DP Roger Deakins talking about a couple of scenes from No Country For Old Men (Coen Brothers), for an example of what I mean:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC5EsRtlQ8I

His work, and that of Barry Sonnenfeld before him, is responsible for giving Coen Brothers films that high quality look. Sonnenfeld has since directed a whole bunch of good-looking films, including the Addams Family and Men In Black films.

krudler

one thing I dont like about a lot of films these days is how bland they look, I've noticed it a lot with romantic movies and comedies, say stuff without big effects or many stylistic choices, they just look flat, like there's no depth whatsoever to the picture, Fox and Sony movies have this a lot.

johnny_ultimate

krudler wrote: »

one thing I dont like about a lot of films these days is how bland they look, I've noticed it a lot with romantic movies and comedies, say stuff without big effects or many stylistic choices, they just look flat, like there's no depth whatsoever to the picture, Fox and Sony movies have this a lot.

You're watching the wrong films :P

Films aimed at a wide audience that only view films as mindless entertainment are never going to take the time to look anything more than competent: far too much effort for so little reward. I do agree a lot of Hollywood stuff looks bland and over-familiar these days though. I'd say J.J. Abrams (lens flair aside) tends to try relatively hard, as does Nolan.

Still lots of technically fascinating films being made. Plenty knocking about at the moment, actually. If Cafe de Flore's still out, well worth tracking down. It's a mess storywise (disappears up its own arse near the end), but it's a triumph technically. Moonrise Kingdom is a brilliantly designed film on almost every technical and artistic level. Prometheus at the very least looks it could be a rare Hollywood blockbuster with a bit of a stylistic identity.

mike65

A lot more films look like TV these days mainly because a lot of TV looks like feature film standard, in the past even the most expensive telly still looked like telly bar the odd exception like The Winds of War.

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

You're watching the wrong films :P

Films aimed at a wide audience that only view films as mindless entertainment are never going to take the time to look anything more than competent: far too much effort for so little reward. I do agree a lot of Hollywood stuff looks bland and over-familiar these days though. I'd say J.J. Abrams (lens flair aside) tends to try relatively hard, as does Nolan.

Still lots of technically fascinating films being made. Plenty knocking about at the moment, actually. If Cafe de Flore's still out, well worth tracking down. It's a mess storywise (disappears up its own arse near the end), but it's a triumph technically. Moonrise Kingdom is a brilliantly designed film on almost every technical and artistic level. Prometheus at the very least looks it could be a rare Hollywood blockbuster with a bit of a stylistic identity.

Oh yeah there are definitely directors who you know will deliver a stylish looking film, Scott, Nolan, Spielberg at times, Tarantino, hell even Zack Snyder for all his faults at least his movies look interesting. Its just so many non-genre movies look dull, like most of Judd Apatows stuff, now granted you're not going to watch a romcom for stylistic directorial choices and cinematography, but still, its like certain movies just go through the "look how shiny and pastel coloured everything is" Hollywood filter: http://www.cracked.com/article_18664_5-annoying-trends-that-make-every-movie-look-same.html

colour correction when used well can make a film look gorgeous though, David Fincher uses it a lot, and to brilliant effect in Se7en:

Sad Professor

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

If Cafe de Flore's still out, well worth tracking down. It's a mess storywise (disappears up its own arse near the end), but it's a triumph technically.

The editing in that film is amazing. And I actually think the story works pretty well.

Anyway, re digital grading, it's terribly overused in some films. Digitally shot films have to use it to make the image look decent, but 35mm shot films generally look better untouched IMO.

krudler

^ agreed, film has a lovely depth to it that digitial (in general) doesn't. now a lot of that is dependant on who's shooting it but look at something like Blade Runner, or Alien, or Once Upon A Time In The West, all still stunningly good looking films.

Sad Professor

Yeah and there's a lot of great recent examples as well, like War Horse, which did have a DI but there was no digital grading. All the colour was created in-camera or in the lab. And of course Nolan doesn't do any digital grading either. As much as I love digital trailblazers like Fincher, there is something to be said for the old-school guys.

johnny_ultimate

You'd be surprised how well an ungraded digital shot is. They even handle low light conditions extremely well (within reason). Nighttime looks great on RED if you're in an urban environment or have minimal lighting.

The biggest problem is that a lot of cinematographers shoot flat digitally, with the logic that they can just decide what it will look like in post. This will look crap ungraded, and TBH is a bit lazy (IMO at least half the work should be done on set). The tools are there to make it look as good as any 35mm stuff. The tools are there in post too, however, which is both a fantastic benefit but also technology that could promote laziness or sloppiness onset.

krudler

Sad Professor wrote: »

Yeah and there's a lot of great recent examples as well, like War Horse, which did have a DI but there was no digital grading. All the colour was created in-camera or in the lab. And of course Nolan doesn't do any digital grading either. As much as I love digital trailblazers like Fincher, there is something to be said for the old-school guys.

you often see it in trailers where movies have much better looking picture than the finished product, Superman Returns is a perfect example, that movie looked horrible with all the grading done. the Star Wars prequels too, having no or little physical sets means theres no dept its all added in later and looks horrible a lot of the time.

jaykhunter

Cheers. Does 35mm handle darkness better than digital? And what would be the difference in the shot of Cowboys vs Aliens if it were shot digitally? Do slick TV shows (like CSI etc) just film with 35mm cameras to look like movies then?

One more, besides manipulation and editing, what positives does digital have over shooting in film? And vice versa? Cheers. V interested in this stuff but I'm in a completely different profession.

bnt

At the risk of getting a bit techie, film generally has more exposure latitude, which refers to its ability to handle the bits of a scene that are over- or under-exposed.

The concept is closely related to and depends on dynamic range, the range of exposure values that the film or sensor can capture. If you picture a scene that has a wide range of brightness, from light to dark, the exposure latitude difference has meant that digital sensors couldn't capture the extremes as well as film. For example, a dim corner of the shot might show some details on film, but be black in digital video.

There's more discussion of this topic here. Though I don't agree with the writer citing depth-of-field as something film does better than digital, since that's dependent on the lenses, not the recording medium. I'll cite The Social Network, again, as a digital film that makes good use of it. I think he's assuming that because digital sensors are typically more sensitive than film, you'd have to use a a narrower aperture for any given scene - but IIRC from the commentary, the cinematographer can easily handle the "too much light" problem by bolting on one or more neutral density filters on to the lens - putting the shades on, as it were. :cool:

johnny_ultimate

jaykhunter wrote: »

Cheers. Does 35mm handle darkness better than digital? And what would be the difference in the shot of Cowboys vs Aliens if it were shot digitally? Do slick TV shows (like CSI etc) just film with 35mm cameras to look like movies then?

A 35mm camera (which I've never used, by the way, so no first hand experience) would handle low light conditions well enough. However, image on both digital and film relies on light predominantly. Consider light information or quality - the less light there is, the less data there is, and the quality will suffer as the camera struggles. You'll see it with lesser digital cameras particularly - lots of noise or 'static' when there's little light. Similarly, two much light and the image will break up as it won't be able to pick up individual colours, textures etc (you solve this by using ND filters, as mentioned above)... It's another reason why digital photographers shooter 'flat' (i.e. just blanket light the scene) as you're able to change the iris, aperture and other light determining settings in post-production as long as the info is there in the first place.

The low light capabilities of the RED One and Scarlet (in my experience of shooting around Dublin city) are fantastic compared to lesser cameras (Canon 5D or Sony EX1, for example). Still: you'd always want some sort of light source or else you'd have to resort to turning up the gain and the like, which really have a very negative on image quality.

In summary - light = good :pac:

Cold Fish is a digitally shot film where you can actually notice the grain and noise level of the image significantly increase in lower light conditions. Or at least I could on a cinema screen.

I'd imagine most TV shows shoot digitally with loads of grading, because...

One more, besides manipulation and editing, what positives does digital have over shooting in film? And vice versa? Cheers. V interested in this stuff but I'm in a completely different profession.

Cost. Pure and simple. Film is a physical product, whereas digital can be shot on cards and recycled over and over. There are storage costs with HDDs and data wranglers (person on set to ensure data is transferred and backed-up safely) etc..., but in general the cost of shooting digital is noticeably lower (although labour and time isn't free, so you can't take forever to shoot a scene ). Digital allows much easier access to non-linear post-production editing suites like Final Cut - before Apple committed professional Hara-Kiri with FCPX - Premiere or Avid. When it comes to distribution and exhibition, a digital print for the theatre could be ten or twenty times cheaper than a 35mm one. Weight could be considered another benefit, although the RED One (which is an ergonomic disaster) and Arri Alexa are kind of on a par with what a film camera's size and weight (getting ever lighter though - the RED Scarlet is tiny in its basic form, although requires many weight additions to increase functionality).