Experts

The film look: what is it, and why are there two of them?

There are two basic techniques for making digital images look like film. Here’s what they are, and why.

The film look is an elusive thing. Everyone has their favorite flavor, but there are two basic, yet opposite, techniques in vogue right now—and I think I’ve figured out why.

When the film-to-digital transition commenced in earnest, back in the early 2000s, the biggest complaint about digital was that it had a “video look.” Over time the general consensus was that it boiled down to two things: over sharpened detail, and very saturated and hue-distorted highlights. Early HD cameras (I’m looking at you, Sony F900) only gave us about two stops of overexposure latitude above middle gray. Highlights clipped in the most hideous manner, often showing hue shifts (cyan and pink were not uncommon). And the rule of thumb for those of us with film experience was to keep the detail way down when shooting for broadcast (-40 in SAU, or “Sony Arbitrary Units”) or off when shooting for a film print.

The original Panasonic Varicam was gorgeous. Its color was very delicate, accurate, and somehow filmic, and even though it only captured 720p it outpaced the F900 among owner/operators because cinematographers were drawn to this “non-Sony” look. It had several gamma curves that aggressively compressed highlights, and while they were meant to capture images for post grading we often used them for WYSIWYG imagery because they desaturated highlights and rolled them off in a more filmic manner.

As cameras got better and better, we gained more dynamic range but the image didn’t always look filmic. It wasn’t until the Arri Alexa Classic debuted in 2010 that DPs like myself, who started out in film, felt we had access to a true digital cinema camera. The amazing thing about this camera was that the entire dynamic range was usable: rather than having to protect highlights, or keep flesh tones below 60% on a waveform to prevent hue distortions, we could overexpose or underexpose and it all looked great. What had been technical considerations evolved into artistic choices.

I was fascinated by Alexa’s color, and I became determined to figure out what was going on. I set up a Sony F55 (pre Cine-EI mode) next to an Alexa, aimed them both at a color chart, and rolled through as much exposure range as I could, observing what happened to color saturation as exposure increased.

The Sony F55, in custom mode, saturated colors right up until luma hit 70%, at which point highlights showed dramatic color distortions and the diamond pattern on the vectorscope resembled a shrunken and very unhappy starfish. In Alexa’s case, the diamond pattern on the vectorscope grew until luma hit 35% or so, and then the pattern locked. As exposure increased, colors got brighter but they didn’t get more saturated.

That’s what film does. Unless you talk to a colorist.

A common colorist trick is to desaturate shadows for a film look, which seems backwards to someone like myself who has actually shot film and thinks Alexa does a great job of emulating the “film look.” I like this look, but I didn’t understand for the longest time why I focused on desaturated highlights and they focused on desaturated shadows.

When I realized what was going on, I felt like a bit of an idiot.

I’d been looking at highlight quality because I transitioned to digital at a time when that was its huge weakness. In film I could overexpose highlights, blow out windows, use practicals to light the shot, all because the highlights rolled off gently to a desaturated white. Digital held more shadow detail than film, by far, but it couldn’t handle highlights. Film held highlights, but shadows were often a bit crunchy.

Well… print stock shadows were crunchy. When I started out I worked mostly on features, so I focused on what the print looked like. Print stocks don’t have nearly as much shadow dynamic range as film negative does because it is trying to block as much light from the projector as possible to create rich blacks. Colorists transfer directly from the negative, so they have a very different experience.

I found this 65mm negative from Lawrence of Arabia at the Widescreen Museum. (This is a great website, and if you don’t know about it you owe yourself a long visit.) I brought it into Adobe Lightroom and played around with it a bit:

In film negative, the dark areas are highlights and the bright areas are shadows. It’s interesting to note that most of the color information is in the mid-tones. It drops off pretty quickly in the shadows, because those drop off to transparency.

 

Transparency in a film print represents highlight information. Transparency in a film negative represents shadow information. In both cases, increasing transparency means decreasing color information.

As a film DP shooting for print, I knew that I had less dynamic range in the shadows because print stocks dropped off before they reached deep into the toe of the film curve. They had to, otherwise they couldn’t reproduce a deep black. Colorists don’t have that barrier: they create imagery directly from the negative, and they can shape the bottom of that curve to pull out more detail than I ever had access to in a print. In the same way that a digital camera captures more shadow detail than can be reproduced on a print stock, a telecine can pull more out of a film negative than a print stock can reproduce.

The upshot is this:

  • If you’re used to grading from a film negative, and you’re trying to make a digital image look like what a telecine would see in the deepest shadows of a film negative, you’re going to desaturate digital shadows because color saturation decreases as the negative becomes transparent.
  • If you’re used to viewing print film, you’ll be more interested in desaturating digital highlights, as color saturation decreases as the print stock becomes transparent.

I suspect most colorists use a combination of these tricks. Most cameras, though, focus on highlight desaturation over shadow desaturation. Alexa certainly does this, Panavision’s DXL2 with Light Iron color science does this, and modern REDs do this as well. It makes sense to emulate what a film print stock does because the only way to see a truly filmic look is to view projected film. As this has become somewhat uncommon with the advent of digital projection, it’s less important to emulate film than it is to differentiate between beautifully shot digital images and the traditional video look. From that perspective, either technique meets that need.

I have worked as a paid consultant to both Sony and Arri.

I’ll be teaching two Arri Academy classes in mid-March, 2018 in Brooklyn and Chicago, with another class in Vancouver, B.C. in April. If you’d like to learn the ins-and-outs of Arri cameras, accessories, color processing, LUTs, recording formats, etc., this is worth checking out. For more information about upcoming classes, or to request a class in your area, please contact the Arri Academy coordinator.

Art Adams
Director of Photography

 

 

 


Share Our Article

Cinematographer Art Adams shoots spots, visual effects, web/interactive/mobile and high-end marketing projects. His website is at http://www.artadamsdp.com. Art has been published in HD Video Pro, American Cinematographer, Australian Cinematographer and Camera Operator Magazine He is…

15
Leave a Reply

avatar
6 Comment threads
9 Thread replies
3 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
Quentin BrowncpcmilepetrusArt Adams Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Tim Guy
Tim Guy

Great stuff – thank you Art! That has conclusively answered my original question. 🙂

Jamie LeJeune

Great article Art! It would be amazing to have one of those classes in San Francisco. There is a complete lack of advanced training in the Bay Area for some reason, even when compared to what I would assume are smaller markets. I sent an email to they address you linked to, but if you yourself have any impact on where they plan them, please let them know we need some Bay Areas classes : )

Bruce Schultz
Bruce Schultz

Art, I always saw this film vs digital as the difference between shooting on film positive (reversal) and film negative stocks – film being a negative (for the most part) stock and digital being a positive/reversal profile. I used to get 35mm strips rolled onto 35mm stills rolls from a lab in LA and get back from the lab both positive (slides) and negatives. I could see the difference you describe above when I later brought those negatives into Photoshop for archival process. There is a simple trick in DaVinci Resolve to take saturation out of the shadows using Lum… Read more »

cpc

Shadows ARE saturated on a negative! The reason is exactly the same as the reason highlights are desaturated. Highlights desaturation is a product of the shoulder, shadows saturation is a product of the toe. After you print, you increase both effects — negative toe combines with print film shoulder and increases saturation in the blacks further; negative shoulder combines with print toe and decreases saturation in the highlights further. The main reason colorists desaturate shadows in the grade is to achieve deeper blacks, which means a perceptually denser image. This is literally the only way to pull shadows down to… Read more »

petrus

Wow it feels good to be am satisfied with the answer i got… Thanks for this article

mile

Great article Art! It would be amazing to have one of those classes in San Francisco. There is a complete lack of advanced training in the Bay Area for some reason…