September 15, 2013

The Film Look Explained: One Camera Setting You Should Remember

Film Look 24fpsOne of the biggest questions I'm asked and have asked, and definitely one that pervades the indie digital film scene is this, "How do I get that film look?" The answer isn't as easy as it may seem -- except maybe to go shoot on film -- because there are many factors that go into producing the grain, color, and "flicker" -- the "look" we've all become accustomed to seeing in movies. A short video from The Basic Filmmaker, in a simple (though not simplistic) lesson, gives us a place to start in order to achieve it, and it all begins with choosing the traditional frames per second and shutter speed.

The video tells us about one very important camera setting you'll need to get that film look, and then explains why. Of course, there are a ton of other factors, like cameras, lenses, lighting, set design, color grading, and much more that help attain the look.

Simply put, one important component of getting the film look is setting your shutter speed to twice that of your choice of frames per second. In the US, films are typically set to 24fps, so that means your shutter speed should be set at 48. Since images have been captured at 24fps for most of cinema's history, that's the frame rate most of us in the US are used to.

Check out the video, which does a fantastic job of explaining things clearly and simply -- even adding some frame rate history that puts it all into perspective.

Have you found that setting your shutter speed to twice of your frame rate helps achieve the film look? What other tools/methods/settings/programs do you use to get "the look?"

[via Filmmaker IQ]

Your Comment

74 Comments

I have a question about shutter speed in regards to high speed frame rates and slo-mo. I recently tried shooting 60p with my new camera and have known about the double the shutter rule and put my shutter to 125 but when I slowed down the footage to 40% it all looked jittery. If I want to shoot high speed for slow motion, should I set my shutter speed to double the frame rate I'm recording in or double what I'll be displaying it in?

September 15, 2013 at 6:38PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Peter P.

125 should be fine for 60p. When you want to slow it down in a 24p timeline, instead of slowing it by 40%, is there an option to change the files framerate? In Premiere Pro for example, you right click > modify, then change the files framerate from 60 to 23.976 and that should make it smooth slow mo without the jittery-ness

September 15, 2013 at 6:56PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Dave

It depends on what NLE you're using. In FCP7 (not sure about FCPX) slowing the speed of the footage will cause this jittery effect. Try using Cinema Tools to conform your footage to 23.98 FPS first (but do so to a copy of your footage, as this will permanently change the footage from 60fps-to-23.98fps).

But, if you are using Premiere, slowing it down to 40% should work fine.

September 17, 2013 at 3:48PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

In FCPX you would select the Retime button or right click the clip and choose "Conform Speed".

September 18, 2013 at 11:38AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply

You can always reconform back to the original frame rate. Reconforming multiple times is not destructive in any way.

September 20, 2013 at 7:48AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
WranglePCvideos

It sounds like the problem is just that the shutter speed (not frame rate) is freezing the motion of your subjects (or camera movement) more. With slower shutter speeds like 1/48, there's a fair amount of motion blur which tends to make motion look smoother and more natural. But higher shutter speeds reduce the motion blur. You can see this effect intentionally-applied in the D-Day landing in Saving Private Ryan.

I haven't had a chance to watch the video yet - did they mention the rotating 180 degree shutter in film cameras? I don't want to be redundant by mentioning it here if it's in the video.

September 19, 2013 at 3:23PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

at higher frame rates, like 60fps and above, you can also set the shutter speed to exactly that, so every frame is exposed until the next frame starts. That way you will get smooth motion at every playback speed.

The reason you need to use 1/48s for 24fps is because 1/24s would be a rather long exposure and you get a lot of motion blur. With 1/60s or shorter, there's not so much motion blur, and you don't really need a faster shutter speed.

Just try different settings, there's no "wrong" or "right".

September 20, 2013 at 3:09PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Heiko

always wondered why we don't see motion blur on high frame rate footage when our eye does it in real life.

September 15, 2013 at 6:40PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply

In real life it depends on ambient light and human eye. Turn around fast in dimly lit room and it would look like "soap opera" video.

September 16, 2013 at 6:10AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Natt

My life is a soap opera... that explains it. ; )

September 19, 2013 at 3:25PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Your eye won't add motion blur while watching high frame rate footage because technically there is no motion to add it to. Instead of a car moving through space with light bouncing off it continuously for your eyes to perceive and persistence of vision to add the motion blur; you are presented with a succession of images, in which a car is in a different place in each image. The effects of PoV still exist with high frame rate footage, but without all of the in between stages of the object in motion, your eye will only persist the position of the object in the last frame. In some instances where the subject is moving very fast across the screen (Saving Private Ryan, for example), PoV creates a strobing effect or the jittery motion that high frame rate is sometimes known for.

September 19, 2013 at 3:39PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply

this is too basic..

September 15, 2013 at 6:42PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
sebastian

you say that but I've seen broadcast video shot at non standard frame rates and had to explain it... As well as a videographer with "10yrs experience" who questioned my questioning of controlling his exposure through shutter speed on an ex3 with all its lovely built in ND's etc

September 15, 2013 at 7:16PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Chris Lambert

Yet there are full movies shot the wrong way, like "Captain America: the First Avenger" and "Public Enemies", all video looking because they use 1/24 for 24fps. Incredible.

September 15, 2013 at 7:48PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply

Both Public Enemies and Captain America were shot on 35mm you goofball. What the hell are you talking about?

September 15, 2013 at 8:16PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Steve

And to add to that, there is no shutter speed in film (1/48, 1/60, etc), only shutter angle.

September 15, 2013 at 8:17PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
Steve

September 15, 2013 at 8:51PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

7
Reply
Lifeo Fideas

Sorry, correction. There's no shutter speed in motion picture film. That wiki link is for stills.

September 16, 2013 at 12:10PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Steve

"Captain America" was only partially shot on film, the rest was shot on the Panavision Genesis, and "Enemies of the State" was shot mainly on video too.

But besides that, you either didn't watch either movie or you can't recognize a 360º shutter on moving images (which is the same as saying "1/48th shutter" if you shot 24fps, mind you).

September 16, 2013 at 3:20PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Which results in shutter speed.

September 19, 2013 at 3:23PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

"Public Enemies" was shot on RED.
“Captain America: the First Avenger” was shot (mostly) on an Alexa.

September 15, 2013 at 8:39PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Derply Derp

No, Captain America was mainly Panavision Genesis... The Alexa had just started being released when shooting and was only used for small parts of that film (vehicle interiors where the Genesis wouldn't fit). There is an American Cinematographer ad about it floating around somewhere...

And Public Enemies was primarily F23.

September 16, 2013 at 9:29AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Went back and found the AC on Captain America, and this is how the camera systems break down.

Panavision Genesis was the main camera. They shot spherical and used Blue Streak to create the anamorphic flares.
Film was used to shoot flames and explosions because they could get more a stop or two out of the highlights, and thus more detail in the bright explosions. The article also said 2nd unit used film cameras on the camera cars in the chase through Manhattan scene.
5DII was used by the second unit as a crash cams.
Alexa used by the underwater unit.

September 16, 2013 at 9:23PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

According to IMDb, Public Enemies was shot on/with the following:
Arriflex 235, Cooke S4 Lenses
Arriflex 435, Cooke S4 Lenses
Sony CineAlta F23, Zeiss DigiPrime and Fujinon E-Series Lenses
Sony CineAlta HDC-F950, Zeiss DigiPrime and Fujinon E-Series Lenses
Sony PMW-EX1

September 15, 2013 at 9:18PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

5
Reply
avatar
Dave Kendricken
Writer
Freelancer

That EX1 will result in a very video look

September 16, 2013 at 6:52AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
PhinioxGlade

I don't really want to tread into this warzone but I do want to say something about "Film look" especially concerning Michael Mann's films... That "Video" look in he uses worked very well in Collateral (mostly shot on the Thompson Viper I think) it really worked for the night time modern LA it really made me believe its "REAL"..... But in Public Enemies it did not work at all.... my brother describes it as the most disappointment he has ever been about a movie.... And its because of the cinematography..... that digital look really works and that I loved for a modern LA did not work at all for Depression era America.... if ever a film needed to be shot and film it was Public Enemies... I think it would look best in black and white.... because that is how we know the 30s looked.... shooting it like that with the harsh electric light everywhere completely removes the audience's Suspension of disbelief..... it just does not look like the 30s so you can't believe that it is....

September 16, 2013 at 6:18PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply

Hey Jan, your point is good and valid that is was a bad-looking movie and the images pulled you pulled you out. Michael Mann was going for something new and different, and maybe he failed, but I give him credit for trying. That movie was pretty meticulously researched, all the lighting fixtures and glow and illumination was what really existed at the time. He was trying to show us what 1930s American really looked like, as if a modern news crew was dropped into the past and started videotaping. He was not interested in dreamy-recreation of old-time film techniques giving us a 30s that matches our cultural collective conscience. He may have failed, but I like to think his approach still has a lot of value beyond just "it looked good" or "it looked bad."

BTW... On Collateral it looks like they bounced back and forth between f900s and Vipers because the Vipers weren't quite ready-to-go when the shoot started. It is an interesting article.
http://www.theasc.com/magazine/aug04/collateral/

September 16, 2013 at 9:38PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply

I don't know where you saw CAPTAIN AMERICA because that looks fine to me, but PUBLIC ENEMIES, like a lot of Mann's recent work, had a lot filmed with 360° shutter which gives it more of a video look: http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/July2009/PublicEnemies/page1.php

September 15, 2013 at 11:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Exactly that's why it looks videoish, beyond what camera was used.
As for Captain America, what I remember watching really put me off. There were a few scenes that were shot right, but most of it I remember looking like it was shot at 360º. I'll try to get a copy to check, but I'm pretty sure about this.

September 16, 2013 at 3:05PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply

Michael Mann loves shooting that awful > 180º shutter...

it's so offensive. I feel like I'm tripping or watching 50's-60's-70's era video or something b/c motion bleeds.

Life of Pi looked awful too...that video look b/c Miranda/Lee often shot great than 180º shutter angle.

September 20, 2013 at 4:12AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Daniel Mimura

I like using 200° or 220° on video cameras because somehow it gives it more of the "real" film look than 180°

I don't know, maybe it's because real fim cameras have a rolling shutter, but 180° on a video camera often looks too stuttering for my taste. As I said, try 200-220, it's not bad!

September 20, 2013 at 3:14PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

6
Reply
Heiko

Are you talking about videocameras at 30fps or 24 or 25?

I seem to remember you to be in europe, so I'm guessing you're talking 25fps.

That little bit extra is okay...it's the 360º or close to it that's especially offensive looking to me.

September 21, 2013 at 10:12PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

8
Reply
Daniel Mimura

Ridiculously so.

September 15, 2013 at 7:51PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
FabDex

What's ridiculous is that many industry pros don't know this basic stuff either. I guess the ones that make the mistake of shooting at 360º on video cameras come from film, and so they go to the farthest possible extreme of the shutter on any given frame rate (this being 360º on video while it's 180º on film without even looking at it; 360º is physically impossible on film).
Now regardless of you knowing this or not, this info IS useful for some people, as basic as it may look, specially to many pros don't even apply it on sheer ignorance (I highly doubt they use 360º as an aesthetic choice, as much as I'd respect that if so was the case).

September 16, 2013 at 3:26PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

For whom? It's great that you know this information, but others may not.

September 15, 2013 at 8:28PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
avatar
V Renée
Nights & Weekends Editor
Writer/Director

True, others may not know this, however it is in the nofilmschool dslr cinematography guide. So they should.

September 16, 2013 at 9:59AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply
sbsk

Too basic for you me and a lot of other people yes but this blog has a big investment in helping people learn regardless of their experiece. I think it's good that people like NFS and VideoCopilot still cater to beginners too! We were all n00bs once :)

September 15, 2013 at 9:00PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
Kraig

Agreed. And 99.9% of filmmakers here will NEVER make a real fictional feature film.
But they like to buy gear to make themselves feel like they could, one day. But never will, of course.

September 16, 2013 at 7:55AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Heyzeus

Wow....that's not a pretentious comment at all. Let me ask you something, if you are not one of the 99.9% you describe which feature films have you shot?

September 16, 2013 at 9:49AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Ricky

+1

September 16, 2013 at 9:57AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
August

I don't think that's a pretentious statement. It's the same with anything else. People buy loads of gear whatever the skill. It doesn't do the work for them. Making a feature film takes a lot more than writing a novel, or recording an album, and even that is sometimes never done by most people that are interested in doing so. The 99.9% statistic may be a little off the mark but not by much. If by "real" he means successful., than 99.9% is a close proximity to the truth. If he means 90 minutes or more of greatness, 99.9% is being honest. If he means 90 minutes or more of mediocrity, than the percentage could go down some. The percentage for shorts is a much more comfortable percentage. But for a great short the percentage is still high. There was a post here on nofilmschool talking about kickstarter and the demographic of their traffic. I don't remember the statistic itself but a very small percentage of traffic actually donates and an even smaller donates a considerable amount. Most are just driving by. I think the same holds true here. It's not a pretentious statement, it's just the way it is. And just because they are driving by doesn't mean they don't want to stop and build a house, it's just that they may have somewhere else to go and building a house takes a lot of work.

September 16, 2013 at 10:27AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
sbsk

Funny how some people always know everything about everyone else...

I for one work as a cameraman for tv, but I'm interested in film and I shoot a short film now and then (mostly no budget, just for fun). I hardly own any equipment myself (except for a 7D which I use mainly for shooting stills, my other hobby).

How do I fit your profile? Oh, wait, I don't, because you don't know me and couldn't even imagine someone like me reading articles here... ;)

September 20, 2013 at 3:19PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Heiko

Maybe we can get a story tomorrow telling me where the record button is

September 16, 2013 at 1:52PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
Fresno Bob

Anamorphic

September 15, 2013 at 9:22PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

5
Reply
Anthony Marino

FWIW, here's the 48 fps Hobbit trailer (albeit compressed to the YouTube standards)
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQmnQzmdDHI ]
.
One could argue than an "unnatural" look is fine for such a flick.

September 15, 2013 at 9:48PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
DLD

That's actually 30 FPS. YouTube doesn't support display of videos with frame rates above thirty frames per second. You can also right-click on the video and select "Stats for nerds," which will display the framerate information while the video is playing.

September 16, 2013 at 11:14PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Mr Blah

Public Enemies was NOT shot on Red or 35mm. Where do you people get your information?! Good lord. A bunch of trolls up in here.

September 16, 2013 at 12:19AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

9
Reply
Robert

But you realized it was shot on video, didn't you?

September 16, 2013 at 3:28PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

That seems likely since he said it wasn't shot on 35mm...

September 17, 2013 at 4:10AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gabe

You're right. I misread. I'm sorry, Robert.

September 17, 2013 at 2:19PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

There is one and only one reason for 24 FPS. Silent movies were film at a slower frame rate, when sound movies came about, 24 FPS was the slowest frame rate that could be used with Optical Sound on the edge of the film. Simple as that.

Many different shutter angles/shutter speeds have been used for 24 FPS film cameras. From a low of about 144 degrees to a high of about 235 degrees. A popular camera in 1960s Hollywood was the Panavision PSR 200 with a 200 degree shutter. Many professional cameras have VARIABLE shutter angles so the DP can choose the angle he wants/needs.

Remember that the wider the shutter angle the more exposure you get. That why Digital Cine cameras are sometime set to 360 degrees (to get one more stop of light over 180 degrees).

If you had went to film school you would know this 8-)

September 16, 2013 at 1:15AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
c.d.embrey

it's funny you say that on a website called NOFILMSCHOOL.

September 16, 2013 at 6:34AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
jesuan

There isn't one and only one reason for 24fps...

Although, yes, with the adaptation of sound, that was the magic number that gave decent optical (and also magnetic) sound fidelity...but there are other reasons too, one of the best of which is the number of things that are divisible by 24...

Animators (and filmmakers who love to frame double or triple or quadruple---like Wong Kar Wai---Grandmaster is almost never shooting at 24fps shooting 6fps, 8fps, 12fps...etc...) usually animate on twos, and budget ones like a lot of anime animate often animate on threes or fours, and even sixes...

Anyway, nowadays there is one HUGE reason to shoot 24fps...it's b/c we have about 90 years of history seeing this frame rate with more often than not, a 180º shutter speed. It's like haiku or sonnets...there are "rules" to how we do it...of course you can break all the rules you want, and unlike haiku and sonnets, the rules are not written out and set in stone...but overall, these unwritten rules let filmmakers have a common space across the whole damned planet and across the years.

TV has had 30fps (29.997 or whatever) and 25fps for PAL...but movies have been more or less universal.

Chumps like Mann and Jackson like to change it, but they sure look ugly...which is especially interesting since they are mainstream filmmakers generally going for a mass appeal. I guess they think breaking the mold will help them stand out---I know Mann likes the extended shutter times to have more of an effect of gunfire showing up on the actors faces, or getting lit up by taking a drag from a cigarette---or getting a silhouette of Tom Cruise against the actual lights of los angeles in the background...but they just look...weird. Jackson, and Cameron aren't generally talking about it, but their interest in shooting high frame rate (which affects the shutter speed and amount of motion blur) is for 3d b/c some 3d systems alternate eyes, and 12fps is not enough for many people to have a comfortable and smooth persistence of vision...

September 20, 2013 at 4:27AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Daniel Mimura

The guy's stupid. 24fps is the normal cinema frame rate in the whole world, not just in the US. And 25fps is the video european frame rate, as 29,97fps is the US video frame rate (or 30). If he doesn't even know that he doesn't have anything to teach...
And anybody making videos knows that shutter speed should be twice the frame rate, that's like filmmaking 101.
Useless video ever.

September 16, 2013 at 6:04AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Useless? Why, because you have already learned this standard? Well a year ago I was given a high end camera and told to go film a corporate video, I had no idea what I was doing. I went to a forum and asked how I could get stop the CMOS rolling shutter effect and one of the members told me the basics. At some point someone told, showed or you read that the standard shutter is double the frame rate. The YouTuber is called the Basic Film Maker and his tutorials are aimed at beginners.

September 16, 2013 at 7:01AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
PhinioxGlade

Criticism is valuable as long as it is constructive, but personal attacks are grounds for deletion; you don't have to agree with us to learn something. We’re all here to help each other, so thank you for adding to the conversation!

I do not think 'this guy is stupid' is constructive do you? Everyone has to learn from someone, and what is he is saying is the basics that most of us know. Just because you already know it doesn't mean he is stupid.

September 16, 2013 at 8:49AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Buddy

It is a helpful post for some people, I'm sure. A lot of people who are starting out use this site. I've turned a few rookies on to this site myself. No reason not to have elementary posts from time to time. V Renée has put out some great posts.

September 16, 2013 at 11:46AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Heyzeus

I believe with proper sound you have taken 60% of the film look out of the equation. You can't claim that film grain, color, and flicker has anything to do with modern films looking like 'film' Do you see flicker/grain in Avatar? I don't, not even close. It is almost perfect in its display of colors so vivid that a film camera simply cannot reproduce imo. Digital cameras such as reds have been used in a good many films and I see no flicker / grain unless they put it in during post. I believe what people are looking for can no longer be quantified as 'film' look. Maybe we should say 'hollywood' movie look instead of 'film' look.

Just my 2 cents.

September 16, 2013 at 8:46AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply
Buddy

I actually really like what you say hear. "Hollywood look." That seems to capture the breadth of technology we are used to seeing this day and age.

September 16, 2013 at 9:41AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

@Heyzeus, why do you spew garbage with each reply? This is a place for mature folk, you should take your crap to the comment section of Yahoo News.

September 16, 2013 at 9:54AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
August

Hark at 'Mr Mature' here, LOL

September 16, 2013 at 11:44AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Heyzeus

So nice to see people adamantly claiming to know what certain films were shot on, calling each other names about it, and getting it wrong. Have some civility, and research your facts, don't merely pass on what you heard from another ill informed blog poster. It doesn't add to the discussion.

September 16, 2013 at 10:54AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
seriously

Seriously.

September 16, 2013 at 3:31PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

I find that with DSLRs, protecting the highlights is extremely important. Nothing gives away the DSLR format like blown out highlights (after the obvious frame rate).

September 16, 2013 at 12:08PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Agreed.... use your ND filters.... Magic Lantern zebras and a Marumi Variable ND filter has made a very big improvement in the look of my films....

September 16, 2013 at 5:55PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply

I'm not sure if anyone is familiar with motion cadence but what I'm finding shooting 24 on canon compared to a red feels very different.

September 16, 2013 at 7:36PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
alguti

Personally speaking, I've been in the corporate video biz for 15 years and for me it's been all video camcorders all the time.

I really don't aspire to make a film. I'm sure I'll continue having more fun just watching films... But I do aspire to try to understand this film-look stuff for possible corporate work in the future. And I'm paying close attention to the brave new world of digital cinema cams and lenses.

None of these current video cams do as good a job in low light, i.e. night shooting. So the single, large imager cinematic cams are interesting. Shallow depth of field is attractive sometimes when you don't see the see the wisdom in fooling around with staging and framing nice backgrounds. I have also had 2 duplicate cams so I'd need 2 of whatever cinematic cam I'd adopt. So I have to be careful on expenditures with smaller corporations' marketing budgets depressed as they've been.

This site has been informative to me. I'm a smart guy but trying to deeply understand this this film stuff makes me feel less so. And I wonder if any corporate accounts I have a chance at would even care. My current accounts could care less about film looks.

Having said all that, I think I probably do aspire to a documentary some day and the quasi film look might be good.

Have fun arguing and disparaging each other!

September 18, 2013 at 12:41PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
wsmith

Well, there's an ability to shoot with a DSLR/mirrorless camera and then to "recreate" the film look in post, using the various software packages like Film Convert (that add pseudo film grain, etc).
.
Dave Dugdale has a basic set of advices - http://www.learningdslrvideo.com/film-look-dslr-video/
.
Shane Hurlbut, who has an extensive list of top tier credits, has just published another on his site - http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2013/08/dslr-cinema/
.
Then there are books, videos, etc,

September 18, 2013 at 5:22PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
DLD

I've read somewhere that when the electrical frequency is at 60hertz (US etc), shooting at 1/50 shutter speed (the closest to 1/48 in Canon DSLRs) will cause flickering. So 1/60 shutter speed is recommended when using lights. How true is this?

September 20, 2013 at 12:08AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

9
Reply
JAgbayani

The 60hertz vs 50hertz just affects physical things, not digital ones...

I know I'm not saying this right...but as long as your camera can take whatever your type of AC power you're using...it's electronics will give you whatever you want, as long as it's set for it.

When AC power turned physical motors, sync was achieved by the phase of the power, but now that's regulated without a sync pulse or crystal controlled motors.

September 20, 2013 at 5:09AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

10
Reply
Daniel Mimura

This is *very* true for consumer fluorescent lights, but I've yet to notice it from incandescents, halogens, LEDs, or pro grade low flicker tubes.

September 22, 2013 at 2:46PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Kyle

True dat.

I've seen incandescents flicker too when dimmed down. I didn't think they did... On a recent shoot, I thought my monitor was dying and we didn't really have time to do anything about it or think about it too much, just blindly assuming real physical incandescent light doesn't flicker, and as you turn them off, unlike LED or fluorescents...that the decay was slow enough to not noticeable fade...but when they're already dimmer down, they decay faster, so the flicker can be noticeable.

September 23, 2013 at 2:19AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Daniel Mimura

I disagree. There are plenty of movies that use high shutter speed and still look filmic, especially action scenes. The biggest difference between video and film look how we perceive dynamic range on screen. It helps greatly to use really nice camera with an awesome range, but even with cheap DSLR's, as long as highlights are somewhat protected and have it roll off as best as possible during post, and blacks not being crushed mercilessly, we can achieve film look with proper shoot planning and color grading.

September 20, 2013 at 1:04AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply

We are a group of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community.

Your website provided us with valuable info to work
on. You've done an impressive job and our whole community will be grateful to you.

December 14, 2013 at 3:30PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply

For this video, "The Film Look Plus HIstory - The basic filmmaker EP 69" what were the exact settings used to make this video as I'm trying to shoot a training video with this exact look on my SONY AX100. I am a complete beginner here and would love some insight. My current basic settings after research are the
24FPS
48 Shutter Speed
AE -.7

That's all I got for now...any ideas or help please call or text at 248.872.9814 would love to network :)

April 21, 2016 at 10:29AM

0
Reply