Footage doesn't look filmic/arri like

Some say you should on do it with 100%.

I don't know what you mean. You have everything in London what sydney has. Sun. Clouds. Humidity and so on. More clouds and water of cours in London.

But that doesn't make the Footage made in London less filmic.

Some say you should on do it with 100%.

I don't know what you mean. You have everything in London what sydney has. Sun. Clouds. Humidity and so on. More clouds and water of cours in London.

But that doesn't make the Footage made in London less filmic.

Some say you should do it with 100%.

I do not know what you mean. : D You have everything in London what sydney has. Sun. Clouds. Humidity and so on. More clouds and water courses in London.

But that does not make the film made in London less filmic.

Hey Guys:

You take a compass:
You plant the point at Plymouth/London and you trace a radius of 200 km: Down to France, it is by that that I see the light.

You will not make me believe that it's the same light I saw in other countries ... Closer, further away from the equator ...

RTFM!

Some say you should on do it with 100%.
....

Activate : Display Broadcast Safe Exceptions. All in manual!

I have read the manual of the bmpcc. I do not remember much about exposure.

The quality of light is different in many places. On the coast for instance, or on a mountainside in snow. Great painters chose to paint in the locations they did because of the particular quality of the light there.
Every suggestion people have made or examples shown to help you, for some reason you have argued against. It seems that you are not willing to go and try these things for yourself, and have made it pretty clear you are not willing to learn. So for that reason I'm out.

I think you should just experiment -- spend as much time as you can shooting clips at different exposures to see what works best. There's no substitute for experience.

And you don't really need an expensive lens -- check out this very filmic piece shot by Frank Glencairn on an Ursa using a $250 Tokina lens:

And here's a screen grab from a clip I took this afternoon on my original Pocket Cinema Camera with an $80 Helios lens from the former USSR:

Azalea 3_1.32.1.jpg (799.53 KiB) Viewed 4975 times

One or two last things, before I'm out too:

– shooting ETTR does not mean you should avoid anything going beyond 100%. Small light sources or reflections would make you underexpose and your shadows will be muddy and noisy. Highlights on faces, though, should never be blown out.

– shooting ETTR for moving images doesn't mean that you correct every single shot. You check the most critical highlights for the scene, not the single angle or framing, and then keep the exposure constant.

And now it's time to say goodbye. I'm under the impression too, that you simply don't want to learn.
If you are expecting a kind of instant noodle recipe or an instant "Arri" LUT, good luck!

Or rent an Arri for a few hours and see what you get with your level of knowledge…

You will not make me believe that it's the same light I saw in other countries ... Closer, further away from the equator ...

I have to say, when I first moved to California in the late 1970s, the day I arrived here I looked around and said, "wow, the light is really different from the way it was in Florida." And I noticed a similar phenomena when I lived in Rome for a few months. The quality of the light is different in different places -- not necessarily better or worse, just different.

This workflow: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=65149#p537852

Stjepan, the users on this forum have been extraordinarily generous and patient with the huge amount of advice they have already given. More than enough to do some serious investigations of your own.

There is probably not a single person on this forum who would not love to have their footage look “Arri like.“ It’s the standard by which the color science of all other cameras are compared. If you are looking for Arri-type color science you might look at Kineinity and Z cam. They are vary close.

There is, however, a reason why an Arri Alexa Mini costs from $36-$45,000. If you truly want that look, you are going to have to pay for it. No matter what anyone else may promise, that is really your only choice.

There is, however, a reason why an Arri Alexa Mini costs from $36-$45,000. If you truly want that look, you are going to have to pay for it. No matter what anyone else may promise, that is really your only choice.

One good bit of news: the prices on the old original 2K Alexas have gone down since the release of the Alexa LF and Alexa LF Mini in the last couple of years. I have seen daily rental prices down around $300, which as a fraction of what they used to cost. If you want an "Alexa Look," my advice would be to rent an Alexa. What will kill you are the lens and support prices, BTW.

This might help:
http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.php?2 ... Conversion

(Plus everything else mentioned here about lighting, filters etc.)

I must say that I had a good laugh reading some of the comments on this thread, especially those made by the OP and their expectations.

Sort of along the lines of "Why doesn't my B&W Polaroid camera prints look just like the hand crafted Ansel Adams print which is hanging on my wall..."

The more that I use DR the more I realize how much there is to learn about the art and science of motion picture making, especially the aspects of it that we are discussed in this forum.

I can completely relate to what @nedag.GER is saying. Thats how I found this post, by searching why does my BMPCC 4K footage always look like sh!t. I had the original BMPCC and upgraded to the BMPCC 4K when it was released. I have studied almost every aspect of how to shoot with these cameras, how to light scenes, use of ND filter, IR cut filters, color correcting/grading, framing, exposure, etc. I have a plethora of equipment that I bought including, matte boxes, light, gimbals, cine lenses (Meike), native MFT lenses, and a speebooster to use some fast Nikon glass that I own. The bottom line is that I have experimented with all the different variables and followed the "rules" to get high quality "filmic looking" clips and I never can get that look organic look that I see other people getting with the same equipment and with less effort. My stuff looks more like video, more like regular TV or full auto amateur video than film. And yes, I get proper exposure typically use the false colors (I know about Ansel Adams) and I also have a x-rite color checker; I use the typical 180-degree shutter angle and 24fps settings, I use ND filters to keep apeture wide open in bright scenes and get shallow depth of field.... you name it I have studied almost all the tricks in the book and I still get crappy looking videos that look nothing like others that I've seen that come out from the same camera and less effort.

This is driving nuts, sometimes I think maybe there is something wrong with my camera, my monitor (I use a Dell P2715Q) or computer.

Again, I have done my due diligence studying all the nuances and things that I need to know plus I have put them to practice but I'm still not getting the results I hoped for



Does anyone have any constructive advice?



Thank you!

Art is more than equipment used. If you yourself are not artistic, hire those who are. Set designers, costume designers, lighting directors, cinematographers, etc, are usually artistic types and will contribute to the “film look” more than the camera used.

Personally, I hate the term "cinematic". Why does it have to look "filmic"? If I want it to look like film, I would shoot on film.
I shoot video and grade it how I want it to look, not to fit in with a current buzzword. To illustrate my point, here is a pic which shows the camera original and its grade, which pleases my eye.

Once the camera capture about 10 stops of good representative light, the rest boils down to:

1) lighting on the set
2) set designer
3) artistic intent

And in post

4) good color workflow
5) good tonal mapping/color representation
6) understanding the actual intended look

Lubetzky can shoot cinematic images with an IPhone. Camera is a tool. Camera/resolve does not magically make images that are poorly conceptualized and shot in “Lawrence of Arabia” Masterpieces.

NOR DOES A RANDOM LUT YOU DOWNLOAD FORM THE INTERNET< EVEN IF YOU PAY FOR IT >.

Once the camera capture about 10 stops of good representative light, the rest boils down to:

1) lighting on the set
2) set designer
3) artistic intent

There Is No Perfect Lighting, Nor Set Design, Nor...

Just a camera and then changing colours on pc.

and im still not able, sigh, to make beautiful colours. Stupid crap.

Once the camera capture about 10 stops of good representative light, the rest boils down to:

1) lighting on the set
2) set designer
3) artistic intent

There Is No Perfect Lighting, Nor Set Design, Nor...

Just a camera and then changing colours on pc.

and im still not able, sigh, to make beautiful colours. Stupid crap.

the fact that you dismiss the lighting shows why your images are not where you want them to be.
If something is missing in the photography, you cannot force it there after the fact.

If something is missing in the photography, you cannot force it there after the fact.

yes, and you can't bring the light in, so.... yeah

The reason why most "cinematic" efforts fail on youtube (even if art direction, lights, and exposure was right) is because they forget texture. That's where sony sensors don't do as well as arri or red out of the box. It's easy to get the negative film rendering with an arri, red or canon, but not as easy with a sony sensor. So you will have to use gaussian blur, or anamorphic lens blur plugins, or soften and sharpen plugins, in addition to color grading and grain. You need to get rid of the "thin" details of a 4k image and only allow the thick ones, as film did (there are various ways to do that).

As for color grading it needs to go towards deep, earthy, matte/neutral colors and contrast, not the high frequency rendering of colors that video cameras generate. Basically, you need to gun for a look that looks like a painting instead of a photograph. Unfortunately, there are no plugins for that on resolve, but it can be reproduced by hand. Or use the Look Designer plugin (not a lut), made by a colorist who has colored lots of shows for Netflix (a bit pricey subscription though).

Lastly, you need to crush AND lift your blacks. Watch any film movie, you will see that anything that is barely in shadow land, it quickly becomes black, without any detail on it. This is the opposite of how digital cameras shoot compared to film, which see better in the dark than in the highlights. That's why most DPs in Hollywood these days underexpose by 1 stop, to get better highlights ("highlights are king", they say). Do not be afraid of noise and don't denoise. You will bury that noise under grain and the softening plugins mentioned above anyway. So, you will need to crush your blacks using a curve, or LookDesigner's special CMY slider, and then you will have to lift it to about 30-50 IRE (so it's a creamy black, not all-black and contrasty). Most of the visible image needs to live in the midtones, No burned highlights (bring them down and give them an off white color), while shadows need to get all blacked out.

This is how film renders things, and how Hollywood grades their Alexa/RED footage too. This is not how most Youtube tutorials show how to do things though. They try to retain sharpness out of their sharp lenses and sharp sensors, most natural color, clean shadows, and they denoise the heck out of it. The result is a video look. The celluloid film look is instead soft (retains "thick" details only), often shot with vintage lenses that have character, it has earthy/neutral/matte/muted colors (just like traditional paintings do), great highlight retention, blacked out shadows, it's low contrast overall, and there's a buttload of grain. Buy some 1980-2000s rescanned 4k Blu-rays and study their look. I did so recently, after I canceled all my streaming subscriptions.

Modern film is closer to digital, as since Vision3, it has become much more accurate (and has lost some of its magic, IMHO). I'm personally more interested in the older look, since I grew up with 1980s films, like Predator, Terminator, and Star Wars. If you rather study modern Vision3 film look, consider the "Call me by your name" and "Good Times" blurays. On the first blu-ray, Call me by your name, you will see how much difference light can make too, compared to moody NY light on the second film. Mediterranean light has the best light in the world IMHO. Since I'm from there, I've seen lots of Mediterranean films (Italian, Spanish, Greek, Middle Eastern etc), and no matter how they were shot (on film, mostly in the 1990s when I still lived there), they had this magic light in them compared to ANY Hollywood film of the time. I haven't seen this magic light on any other non-Mediterranean film. It's also the reason why Game of Thrones was shooting in 3 different countries, for the various empires it was depicting. Light!

You might not like it, but it's the look I gunned for, and I liked the result:

BMPCC 4k, with Russian vintage lenses, anamorphic bokeh-modded, variable ND, IR CUT filter:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EiFL2dHU4AEJvoW?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EiFL2dHVoAAmpb8?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Sony A6400 (HLG3/rec709 + Look Designer 2.0), with Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8, variable ND:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EjSWpMFVkAADnXu?format=jpg&name=large

There Is No Perfect Lighting, Nor Set Design, Nor...

Just a camera and then changing colours on pc.

and im still not able, sigh, to make beautiful colours. Stupid crap.

You're not going to produce anything good if you can't put something nice looking in front of the lens. At least go out and film during golden hour, when nature has done the work for you.

and im still not able, sigh, to make beautiful colours. Stupid crap.

Because you are so familiar with your own footage, you may not be looking at it as others see it. Get comments from people who are not invested in your work. You may be surprised what they have to say about your images.

There Is No Perfect Lighting, Nor Set Design, Nor...

Just a camera and then changing colours on pc.

and im still not able, sigh, to make beautiful colours. Stupid crap.

You're not going to produce anything good if you can't put something nice looking in front of the lens. At least go out and film during golden hour, when nature has done the work for you.

i have seen thousands of scenes without any key light, just which have beautiful colours
in short: why would i do what you recommend?

i have seen thousands of scenes without any key light, just which have beautiful colours
in short: why would i do what you recommend?

Nobody can tell you why pictures you shot don't look like the pictures someone else shot, when nobody has any idea what any of it -- yours, his, hers, theirs -- looks like.

the interesting part is many people don't know how to make a great image and they still get it...
coincidence?

Stjepan, let’s get from another angle: get a frame you capture, put it in a google drive and share it so we’re can show some ideas.

(Either raw/log or the best you have)

Hi Stjepan,

I don't mean to take issue with your approach to colour grading, but you seem to be frustrated by your own lack of ability to achieve a satisfactory result. Dismissing experienced users suggestions is not a common way to improve dialogue and your own skill set. In my 40 years of experience doing post-production, it's not always possible to achieve a high quality grade or 'look' if the source footage is sub-standard or is not lit in a way that creates a scene that will respond to grading. It's not about whether or not it has a key light. Keep learning and keep experimenting. Try some alternative approaches to both shooting and grading. You will get what you want if you work at it hard enough!

kind regards, Peter

Hello everyone. While watching SNL last night I thought about this post. I did a video grab of three different sketches (see link below). All three are exposed and lit well, however only one has the "cinematic look" that some of us talk about. All three of them involve high production cost but the last one is the only one that looks, like a movie or "cinematic". The other two look "normal". This is the difference that i mean. How can i achieve that look with the BMPCC 4K? My videos usually look more like the first two but nothing like the third one even when I adhere to the 24fps and 180 shutter angle.
What did the producers do different? I know one of them is lighting however there is clearly more to it than just lighting. Maybe color grading? Yes however I've seen the "cinematic look" without color grading.
Do you guys see what I mean, what are your thoughts?

Well, apart from the fact that they are all lit for TV and not cinema, I would not say that the last example is "cinematic". In fact, if you look at the figure on the far right of the sofa at 0.30 and 052, his key light is too bright and does not match the rest of the scene.

Well, maybe it’s the CS caching you consider ‘filmic’?

This is a very entertaining thread!

Since this is a forum about editing on Resolve so pointing out to the original poster that "Matteo Bertoli has many years of experience, has modified vintage lenses, and knows the limitations of his gear intimately and you do not" is not very helpful..., (or is it?) I think Matteo is also telling a story with his short films on YT with a beginning, middle and an end, matched to the music score, so there is a story even on a basic level. it is true that even one image can tell a detailed story but none of your screenshots of your work are doing that IMO.

Shoot a story and then come back! Use a lookbook of images, locations. time of day, ambient lighting that you liked, or anything else that inspires and then try to copy them. (Not just in the forest).

I think managing expectations to match current ability is an important point that the OP is overlooking. The OP has not developed their eye for a shot yet and then is asking the camera to compensate. Asking emerging cinematographers to start off by taking pictures to learn composition today is like asking them to plant their own food.

Asking emerging cinematographers to start off by taking pictures to learn composition today is like asking them to plant their own food.

That's the funniest thing I've read that captures the current "instant-gratification" generation. Thank you for making my day.