Massive newfag cancer who knows fuck-all about cinematography, reporting in
Is it possible to make a movie look like the 35mm of old (think 20 or so years ago), using the digital cameras of today, with specific lighting tricks, lenses, shutter-speed and what-not?
If so, how might one go about such?
I'm sure there are a bunch of software filters you can download for this kind of shit.
Just use some filters in VLC or ffplay you pleb
You don't even have to encode it, just turn on the filter while you're watching it
just shoot on FILM like a real FILMmaker
digital cameras have ruined the act of cutting together a real FILM
anybody can do it
but nobody can do it RIGHT.
VEGAS PRO
E
G
A
S
P
R
O
I've tried Sony Vegas but didn't like the interface and it was very slow on my laptop. Any recommendations for a better video editing software that's suited to more light CPU usage? like the Reaper of video editing software?
Back in 2006 I was in film school in NY and we used DVX cameras, 16mm tapes I think and a guy on my course shelled out for a 35mm lens that gave the impression of film grain etc. and I have to say the end result was really very impressive. Keep in mind I was a pleb back then and what looked impressive to me might well have been shit but still - look them up.
Me thinks the non-filmmaker doth protest too much.
Post specs.
Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU M 460 @ 2.53GHz
4GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M
Win 7 64-bit
Nothing fancy, I just want to create some youtube videos. I'm pretty much a novice, last time I edited video was using Premier 10 years ago in school. And I don't want to start downloading too many plugins/extensions so I prefer if the program has a variety.
There are film grain simulators, for sure.
Digital grain is a thing as well.
Most important is a good lens and good lighting. I think modern digital filmmakers are a bit lazy with that stuff and go overboard with coloring and such - it undoes a lot of what makes a good looking video good looking.
t. NYU film grad
Just wait for technology to get there.
wtf are you talking about
NYFA pleb here. You guys are like the posh fags and we're the community college. All good fun though
You don't need a lot, just download ffmpeg and learn about filters on the internet. You'll have to experiment a lot but it'll be worth it.
if you're looking for a simpler but less competent GUI client, you can use WinFF. It can be helpful in the beginning for all the settings but will hinder you if you use it toot much.
Alternatively, use Lightworks, Cinelerra or Pitvi
It's the frame rate, bring dat shit down to 24fps
You probably have as good technical skills as any of us. I took a lot of good writing courses though.
I think cost/benefit goes in your favor - NYU is ridiculously expensive.
t. jobless
OP again, thanks a lot for the info, all.
Yes.
Digital photography is getting close, but will never be exactly the same. As far as replicating a standard "movie" look, a framerate of 24p and a shutter angle of 1/48 is where you start.
Lighting doesn't have much to do with it, really, apart from avoiding that smeary digital night look by watching your exposure and camera movement.
One thing to watch out for is the latitude of exposure. Depends on what film you're trying to emulate, but some expose for a smaller range of exposures... where proper lighting will look great but things underlit will fall off faster. Depends on the digital camera, but some used to have terrible latitude. New ones can see a lot better over a wider range of exposures. Might not be coherent with the film look you're going for. Again, depends.
Some people add film grain in post to further emulate... I think Snyder did this in 300 even though he was already shooting on 35. That's why that movie looks so fucking crispy.
That was definitely the one advantage NYFA had over other film schools: in the first week they booted us out the door with an arriflex 16mm camera in our hands and said "film something".
>better video editing software more suited for light cpu usage
That doesn't exist. Either you shell out for a really good cpu and graphics card to use proper video editing software or stick with your shitty computer and use "lightweight" editing software which is complete shit anyway.
>trying to digitally replicate a chemical process
Doesn't work m8, the technology isn't quite there yet.
Sorry, no recs, really.
You either work on Premiere on Final Cut if you're a consumer.
Avid used to be the standard but plenty of people use other stuff now. No Country for Old Men was edited in Final Cut 7 and Gone Girl was edited in Premiere.
Do you know whether the Corel video editor is any good? I used to like graphical editors.
>arriflex 16mm
>tfw you have to find a very dark room or use one of those special tents to change film stock and thread it
That shit still pisses me off to no end
*used to like their graphical editors.
I think it would awesome if they could find a way to replicate the look of classic Technicolor films. Modern films are quite ugly in comparison
Ew
Yall clueless plebs
Fim will never be emulated, digital looks ass and dry.
protip: digital has no grain, its called noise. dont be a t. pleb.
No, unless it's your intention to have your project look like ass.
I've used Adobe After Effects for the past 5 years and haven't had any issues
>lens to give the impression of film grain
I don't think so tim
same here tbqh
take a peek to /p/ sometimes, digifags have a very hard time trying to emulate film in a single still frame and they fail everytime, imagine what it would amount to try to do to an entire movie.
the way film treats light, specially highlights, is uncomparable and while digital might look actually good in the future, it will never look like film, because film is product of a chemical reaction. just compare night scenes filmed on film and "filmed" on digital.
it's rather easy to replicate, it's just that most films tend to go for a more realistic colour palette
also the lighting in older films was different
>it's just that most films tend to go for a more realistic colour palette
oh yeah, that orange-cyan mess we see everywhere is pretty realistic.
you fucking ass.
list some good movies that actually use that palette then
there are no good movies made on digital.
you probably can't afford to do this, but a common practice is to take the digital video and then get it printed onto actual film.
>What is Drive
>What is Knight fo Cups
>What is INterstellar
>tfw you have to find a very dark room or use one of those special tents to change film stock and thread it
that's so comfy though
Anything by Michael Mann
Interstellar.....digital.....LOLNOPE
Not if you're on a tight schedule to film something and it's taken 50 tries to get the film to hook onto the latch and finally feed it through the loop
feelsbadfam
>35mm lens that gave the impression of film grain
Neither of those are correlated. I think you need to go back to school senpai