EX 3 film look

[David C jones]

Hi Tel Jaba-

For the most film-like settings, I recommend the following:

HQ 1920X1080
25p
Shutter angle at 180 degrees (or 1/48)
gain at -3 or 0
cine 1 or cine 2

Regards,

Dave J

[Tel Jaba]

hey Dave thanks for your reply
but I was wondering what is Cine 1 and Cine 2?

[David C jones]

The cine settings (cine 1 through cine 4) are preset gamma curves that are part of the picture profile set up. You can find this in the manual starting on page 84. Page 90 actually explains what the differences are between the curves.

Hopefully this helps :o)

[Brian Barkley]

The best way you are going to achieve “the film look” is with a good filter.

With my EX-3, I purcased the Tiffen Soft/Efx 1, 2, & 3 filters, and they have helped a lot.

Recently, I purchased the Tiffen Warm Black Pro-Mist 1 & 5 filters that I found on Ebay. I have not tried them yet, but are advertised to specifically address the “film look”.

[Craig Seeman]

It really depends on what one means by “film look.”

There’s frame rate – 24p
There’s Depth of Field control – can be extended with 35mm adaptor.
There gamma and additional settings which one can use the Picture Profiles for.
Filters as Brian mentions but also Tiffen makes software filters and there’s Magic Bullet and Apple Color (if you’re on Mac).

“Flim Look” is such a broad term that it boarders on meaningless without some detail as to what it means to the given DP and the given production. It’s one thing for Citizen Kane and another for Star Wars and another for Ben Hur.

[John Sharaf]

This is a gross misstatement. Film look, as others have said, is primarily an imitation of film motion which is accomplished by frame rate of 24 and shutter of 1/48th. In addition the modern Hd cameras mimic as best they can the gamma curves of film with their various Cine gamma and Film Look settings, which include gamma, matrtix, detail, knee, etc. The concept that filters create a film look is a marketing device of filter manufacturers.

JS

[Brian Barkley]

Not everyone has the same opinion as to what exactly is the “film look”. My suggestion would be to do some experimenting with the settings in the camera, 24 fps, etc. Also with filters, lighting, etc. I don’t think we’re talking about the movement of the film because the sprockets do not fit tightly enough in the sprocket holes of the film, or scratches, etc. (or are we?)

I was brought up in the “film world”, having spent about 20 years there before taking the leap into video. I worked in both 16mm and 35mm, and edited on Moviolas, as well as flatbed editing tables such as KEMs. Video has always been too clean and plastic looking for my taste, but that’s just me.

If you find a solution to your predicament, please let us know.

[William Primrose]

film look, it’s still video, not film, film has it’s own fingerprint. HD always made everything look like its science fiction… it is getting better. as for the film look, too many variables, filters, depth of field adapters, lenses, lighting, the list goes on. what we have been doing is experimenting with everything on the camera. testing it all to see what comes out of it, and creating our own fingerprint as best we can.