Analyzing motion picture film on movies.

Icra · Nov 2, 2019

Hello all,

I hope I'm in the right section.

I'm Andy and I like film photography.

So time ago an idea stroked me, that in order to take good photography I should watch and analyze what well known directors and director s of photography are making.

So basically I'm trying to learn by observing, and I started to document my journey with short videos with frames extracted from trailers/movies.

First episode (bellow) is posted on YouTube and is about "Once upon a time in Hollywood" and "The Irishman".

Off corse I've started with Tarantino the director that in my opinion saved Kodak going busted.

It is interested the yellow shade I many of the scenes. Instead of 250D could it be a 500T or 200T with an 85 filter (see the orange skin)?

I've added Scorsese movie because I think the night scene (500T) are exceptional.

Please let me know your thoughts about my project.

AndyH · Nov 2, 2019

Cinematography (and direction of course) are eternally linked.

There are so many films that depend on what would be amazing still shots that it's impossible to separate them. Curtiz, Hitchcock, Scorsese, Welles, and so many others depend on the visual shots for their look and feel. It is an entirely fair comparison, IMHO.

Andy

Alan Edward Klein · Nov 2, 2019

Good aesthetics aren;t limited to film or digital. The so-called still photo rules are followed by movie makers since movies were made. Rule of thirds, cowboys riding into the picture, not chopping heads off, balancing the view, not having people block each other's views, correct focus, correct exposure, leading lines, lighting, etc. If you don;t pay attention to these things, shooting in film won;t help you. NExt time you go to the movies, watch how the scene are shot. You'll be amazed how they follow all the rules of still photography, painting, etc.

Alan Edward Klein · Nov 2, 2019

Watch this analysis of The Searchers. Look at each scene. You will see that each meets the "rules" of still photography, some that I mentioned above. Sure it was done in film, all that was available at the time. But the same scenes would have been made in digital.

Icra · Nov 3, 2019

Thanks Alan. I don't think you got the point, but thanks anyway.

AgX · Nov 3, 2019

Welcome to Apug!

I did not get your point either. Basically one can tweak any colour film by means of Colour Correction and Colour Compensating taking filters.
I do not dare to say with what film a movie was made by just looking at it.

GLS · Nov 3, 2019

Icra said:
It is interested the yellow shade I many of the scenes. Instead of 250D could it be a 500T or 200T with an 85 filter (see the orange skin)?

I have not seen the film, but I think it more likely it was just a stylistic choice made in the colour grading process. As I understand it, the in-camera negatives are usually shot as flat and neutral as possible to allow for the greatest editing latitude later, and the use of colour correction filters on D or T films also serve this end. As far as I know the days of chemical colour timing are over; rather the aforementioned neutral/flat film is scanned to a DI (digital imtermediate) and the colour grading and other edits performed digitally. The resulting master can then either be re-printed to film, or directly projected/viewed digitally.

ic-racer · Nov 3, 2019

I'm not colorblind but I don't do color photography (because I have no interest in it) and pretty much have ignore all the things you see in those and other color movies. Thanks for opening my eyes to those differences. I do know that when I see a modern B&W movie I'm extremely interested in the film type, how it was printed, developed and how the scene was illuminated (having been a Photography and Cinema student). I always thought that removing the color (B&W movie) emphasized the effects the filmstock plays in the overall aesthetic.

What you have shown to me is that filmstock has a huge role in the aesthetics of color movies.

Alan Edward Klein · Nov 3, 2019

Icra said:
Thanks Alan. I don't think you got the point, but thanks anyway.

I'm sorry I didn't get the point. Maybe you can explain it again?

Icra · Nov 3, 2019

GLS said:
I have not seen the film, but I think it more likely it was just a stylistic choice made in the colour grading process.

Thanks GLS. What is interesting is Kodak presentation video per each stock of vision film. There is even a comparison with old stock, here, here and here.

Icra · Nov 3, 2019

Alan Edward Klein said:
I'm sorry I didn't get the point. Maybe you can explain it again?

So the idea is not to respect rule of composition (I'm not saying that they are not most important) . The idea is to see what film stock/ color gradient has the director/ director of photography choose for a specific scene. For example in a night scene where they are many neons, lights I'm 100% sure that 500T is used (or any other Tungsten film). For other scenes like day scenes I'm not sure because it could be normal film processed after or it could be Tungsten film with a filter to make it warmer (see orange skin & the 60's look). But don't you think that Tarantino is using film because it gives that retro look?

John51 · Nov 3, 2019

The 1968 movie 'If' was in both colour and black and white. At the time, the story was that they ran short of money and had to finish the movie with b+w stock.

Many years later, a different tale was told. There was a scene in a large church with stained glass windows. The lighting didn't look good enough with colour stock so they filmed it in b+w. They then filmed some other scenes in b+w so that the church scene wouldn't be the only b+w scene.

Kino · Nov 3, 2019

Icra,

"Once Upon A Time In Hollywood" is a hodge-podge of professional 35mm film stocks, 16mm Ektachrome and even Super 8mm.

You should read this interview with the cinematographer: https://www.polygon.com/2019/8/3/20729701/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-1960s-robert-richardson

and there is much discussion of this topic on https://cinematography.com/, where cinematographers gather to discuss all aspects of film and digital movie making.

Here is one thread in particular: https://cinematography.com/index.ph...ime-in-hollywood/&tab=comments#comment-514975

Hope this helps you find your answers...

GLS · Nov 3, 2019

Icra said:
Thanks GLS. What is interesting is Kodak presentation video per each stock of vision film. There is even a comparison with old stock, here, here and here.

Yes, I have seen those before. You will notice though that the skintones/other tones in the scenes are more or less neutral and accurate (including filter-corrected shots), because they are either doing straight prints or very minimal changes to a DI, because they are trying to compare the inherent differences between stocks. Contrast that with the screenshots from the video you posted; those have clearly been graded (especially obvious in those heavily yellow-biased scenes from the Tarantino film).

guangong · Nov 3, 2019

The director of photography in Hollywood films would be better titled the director of light. Not only indoor scenes, but also outdoor scenes and nighttime scenes use a lot of light. Occasionally bump into a feature film shooting a night scene while strolling streets of Manhattan. Plenty of lights, generators, cables all over the vicinity. It’s been over a century since feature films have used natural light, except for shots of expansive scenic vistas. Perhaps somebody totally immersed in the industry would be able to identify what film was used for a particular film or scene. Usually, for more recent films, this info is given in the credits.

GLS · Nov 3, 2019

guangong said:
Usually, for more recent films, this info is given in the credits.

Yes, and sure enough both films list (from IMDB):

Cinematographic Process: Digital Intermediate (4K) (master format)

Both of them will have heavily utilised digital grading, as virtually all movies and TV shows now do.

Kino · Nov 3, 2019

Initial grading of everything was on film, then went to DI and matched back the look of the film.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshwe...arantinos-tinseltown-fairy-tale/#7865ebdc28ae

Icra · Nov 3, 2019

Kino said:
Initial grading of everything was on film, then went to DI and matched back the look of the film.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshwe...arantinos-tinseltown-fairy-tale/#7865ebdc28ae

Thanks Kino. I'm curious if they will ever publish the director's screening.

halfaman · Nov 4, 2019

AgX said:
I did not get your point either. Basically one can tweak any colour film by means of Colour Correction and Colour Compensating taking filters.

That is posible in exchange of light. It is far better to use a tungstent film than a daylight film with color filter correction, you save around 1.5EV of light and also scene lightning power. Trying to compensate on print/scan is not a good idea in my experience, sometimes it is imposible to recover colors accurately.

I agree than film stock is just one part in a long and complex process that I don't think can be extrapolated to standard still photography (Gregory Crewdson not included ). But you can learn about color composition and lightning watching these movies.

If you want to take a look to a recent one shoot on film, I think Steven Spielberg's The Post is a(nother) virtuosistic color work by cinematography master Janusz Kaminski.

Icra · Nov 4, 2019

halfaman said:
That is posible in exchange of light. It is far better to use a tungstent film than a daylight film with color filter correction, you save around 1.5EV of light and also scene lightning power. Trying to compensate on print/scan is not a good idea in my experience, sometimes it is imposible to recover colors accurately.

Are you saying that is possible that they used tungsten as day film with 85 over and that is why all that nice palete of vintage orange'ish?

Luckless · Nov 4, 2019

Alan Edward Klein said:
Good aesthetics aren;t limited to film or digital. The so-called still photo rules are followed by movie makers since movies were made. Rule of thirds, cowboys riding into the picture, not chopping heads off, balancing the view, not having people block each other's views, correct focus, correct exposure, leading lines, lighting, etc. If you don;t pay attention to these things, shooting in film won;t help you. NExt time you go to the movies, watch how the scene are shot. You'll be amazed how they follow all the rules of still photography, painting, etc.

One aspect that I've always liked about cinematography is its ability to abuse and break many of those rules specifically for effect, and doing things like transitioning from a rule break to not breaking it specifically for the jarring effect that comes with it.

The options that motion gives you are amazing and endless. Both in how well they can be done, and how much they can be abused when done badly...

Icra · Nov 4, 2019

Here starting 2:10 Ira Tiffen describes the filter used in Top Gun opening scene, and that is his own deduction.

halfaman · Nov 5, 2019

Icra said:
Are you saying that is possible that they used tungsten as day film with 85 over and that is why all that nice palete of vintage orange'ish?

No, I was trying to say that it is better to use the film balanced for the type of light to minimize exposure or lightning power needed (continuos light is expensive). Color filters decrease the ammount of light throught them.

Icra · Nov 12, 2019

I've made a new episode but this time is just listing the films shot on film for 2019.
I will make new episodes for pass years and then decades.
It is just for reference.

soulstar89 · Nov 20, 2019

Icra said:
So the idea is not to respect rule of composition (I'm not saying that they are not most important) . The idea is to see what film stock/ color gradient has the director/ director of photography choose for a specific scene. For example in a night scene where they are many neons, lights I'm 100% sure that 500T is used (or any other Tungsten film). For other scenes like day scenes I'm not sure because it could be normal film processed after or it could be Tungsten film with a filter to make it warmer (see orange skin & the 60's look). But don't you think that Tarantino is using film because it gives that retro look?

im a avid fan of motion picture film. you find (mostly) the DOP and director shoot on one stock and like you stated a filter is used to changed the kelvin temp for day shots. this gives the daylight a different look compared to say shooting kodak 250d.

the choice of using film is another tool or accessory to aid the mood and vision the director is trying to portray. it goes hand in hand with lighting,location, clothing, colour grading, score etc.

i think tarantino uses uses films as most of his work are not present day so the film looks aids with the mood his trying to create. you should check out roger deakins films his a Cinematography legend. his use of light and camera is poetic.

Analyzing motion picture film on movies.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency