CML - Cinematography Information & Discussion
sponsored by:-
Images & Text Copyright © CML do not use without permission
|
||
|
|
Creating A Feel of 1950’s Film Published : 26th June 2006 I am working on a hip hop music video that takes place in a candy shop/soda shop with a 1950s flare to the design. What are some of the ways to create this look with the filmstocks available today, and/or what can be done in the telecine. Obviously I'd like to do as much as possible in the camera. Also, I'm concerned with the making the artist and the models dark skin look bad (too desaturated). Any thoughts? Darryl Augustine Everyone's perceptions of what an "old movie" looks like is different, so it's better if you just decided what YOU want the film to look like -- pastel, saturated, sharp, soft, grainy, fine-grained, etc. Because you can find examples of all those qualities in 1950's color movies. Plus there's the aspect ratio issue since the 1950's was the dawn of widescreen formats like CinemaScope. Plus 3-strip Technicolor was still in use until 1955, a five-year overlap with Eastmancolor negative. So there's a difference in look right there. And some films were shot in large negative formats like VistaVision and Todd-AO, so there's another difference in looks among films of the same period. Plus we see all sorts of variety in looks due to how these films have been preserved, if they have been reprinted, whether they are being seen in an electronic format like home video versus projected, etc. Again, another variable to consider. So ultimately you have to decide what that 1950's look means to you, and perhaps tell us a particular film you are referencing. Also, it depends on what format you are shooting, how you will post it, etc. David Mullen, ASC One man's opinion : Before you even worry about filmstock response and that sort of technical stuff, I think it is very helpful to get everyone on the same page regarding what constitutes the look of 50's film... Watch some stuff together, or clip some advertisements from magazines or whatever in order to create a stylebook of images you can agree on as being the sort of images you are going for. So much of that "look" is hair and wardrobe and little details in art direction. I recently worked on a commercial that told the story of a hospital's connection with a community as we followed several generations being treated for things - we talked a lot about how to set the era in these short morphing cuts, and part of what we decided for our purposes was that the images most people associated with the eras we were portraying were actually television images not film images, and we emulated lighting styles from TV shows from the various eras as a starting point. I'm not suggesting that you necessarily go down that "TV look" route, but am pointing out that there may be some variety between various people as to what constitutes "that look" Another aspect to consider is camera movement. Sound cameras from that era were big and heavy, and film stocks often meant heavy front fill on daylight scenes, so cameras didn't whip around on tiny dollies or handheld - you have probably seen production photos of big location cranes with a camera, operator, focus puller, and electrician with big arc light all on the same crane. A lot of what some people think of as the fifites look has to do with watching fifties movies, poorly preserved, transferred to tape and shown on television, just as a lot of fifites photogrphy looked different in the fifties from when you look at it in a family photo album as certain colors have faded... I would be less concerned with specifics of film stock, in a sense than with specifics of analysing what the look is that you are going for, and lighting and propping and moving for that look. If you agree on a color bias or color saturation, you can achieve some of that in timing, or in telecine of you are going that way, but you can get a lot of that with subtle filtration on the camera and even more from art direction and etc. Good luck - hope this is somewhat useful - I usually muddy things more than I clear them Mark Weingartner The question was the result of our first creative meeting on the video (director, art director, artist, producer). The concept is locked (hip hop video in a candy shop with the artist and 4 main women). However, what it will look like is still up in the air (the references they are giving are ranging from Norman rockwell, pleasantville, the weezer "buddy holly" video, to the Canadian Virgin Mobile Ads this year). If I want the image to be along the lines of those references - i.e. less saturated colours (maybe more pastel), what are some suggestions of things to try (hopefully i can have time and $ to shoot a test). Old lenses? I know that they will probobly all be factors. Perhaps, there any specific examples of things that some of you have shot and are viewable online that you can explain your process? Thanks, Darryl Augustine >Good luck - hope this is somewhat useful - I usually muddy things more >than I clear them No what you and David said help to define the terms. Every time someone has said to me "how can I / we get the look of a period, thses questions have to be asked **especially** if it's someone younger than myself. I sometimes have to say like "not everyone in the 60's wore tie-die and bellbottoms, there was the IBM look and the Jackie Kennedy also" -Sam Wells Needless to say, art direction, costume, hair, even casting will contribute more to that 1950's effect. Since you are using a telecine to transfer the film to tape, you can even make the most saturated of film stocks look pastel, if not b&w, but for your own education, I would say that Fuji F-400T and Kodak Expression 500T are the most pastel film stocks, and they are not dramatically different than the normal line-up of stocks. Fuji F-400T may have more of that feeling you want since it is a slightly softer stock than the others. Overexposing and pull-processing will make a stock more pastel, as will "mist" or "fog" type diffusion filters (although the foggy look was not popular back then, except for dream sequences, etc.) Using older lenses helps, like old Cooke Panchros or B&L Baltars, etc. For close-ups, diffusion filters like Classic Softs combined with harder glamour lighting. I'd say though that lighting and framing will make a bigger impact than lenses and film stock. It would be a pain to deal with and get processing, etc. but if you are really ambitious, you could try Kodachrome 40T in 16mm and use a LOT of lighting... that's a color stock that actually uses an older design. It's not pastel but again, one could play with the color levels in post. Although you might find it easier to work with Fuji F-400T color neg instead. David Mullen, ASC > It would be a pain to deal with and get processing, etc. but if you are >really ambitious, you could try Kodachrome 40T in 16mm and use a >LOT of lighting... that's a color stock that actually uses an older design. I love the look of Kodachrome but there is some hoop-jumping as David suggests. My strategy to getting a reversal look is to push 7245 one stop. Of course you're still at a slow EI 80 (well that's how I rate it) you could try push 2 here. (I'd test before figuring a rating with that stock pushed 2 stops...) But with telecine maybe don't need to. With the right subject I think it could look kinda Vincente Minnelli poppy in color, with flarey glass, could be interesting.... Kodachrome on a Spirit seems to get that kind of color superimposed on B&W feel from what I've seen... haven't done it myself -Sam Wells > Obviously I'd like to do as much as possible in the camera. I suspect your instinct here is right. However, as a Post guy, I'd like to offer a reminder that films today have the possibility of more markets, more versions, more re-formats than ever before. Ye olde Zanucks and Warners need only worry about playing in cinemas. Not only that, but mostly THEIR OWN cinemas, where they had a lot of sway over what projection equipment was used. Today we have different types of projection, plus analogue TV, compressed cable, DVD's, VHS (still!), webcast streaming, web downloads, podcasting, G3 phones and that thing that's going to happen tomorrow but I don't know what. I'd be inclined to go "most" of the way in camera, leaving latitude for telecine. That latitude might be important for other versions. Then again, if you want to "lock in" a look, go for it. John Hollands Sam wells wrote: >I love the look of Kodachrome but there is some hoop-jumping as >David suggests. My strategy to getting a reversal look is to push 7245 >one stop. WE just did a project where the DP used '45 and pushed it TWO stops. Day exterior, snow covered mountains, cobalt blue sky. I don't know what he rated it at. We added chroma and contrast in telecine and it very closely duplicated the reversal look. Very saturated, heavy blacks, clippy white snow, but unlike reversal, we were able to get some detail in the highlights. As an added bonus, there was no discernible grain. It was 35mm, but as an emulation of reversal imagery without the hoops, pretty darn close. Sincerely, Ed Colman, President If you're going for a television-like feel keep in mind that all transfers were from prints, not negatives, which is where the flat- but-contrasty look comes from. One of my last gigs as an assistant was working on a TV show that was shot by a DP who used to shoot a lot of episodic shows in the 70s and 80s. The lighting style was interesting: 50fc key, 20fc fill, 60fc backlight, and anywhere an actor looked for any length of time there was a fresnel looking back at them. I looked at the sets by eye and saw shadows all over the place, but after seeing the final transfer from a print most of them were washed out. It was very interesting to see. That show must have been the last ever transferred to video that way. It looked a lot like every other episodic show shot in the 70s. It sure wasn't art, but we almost never went over twelve hours and the mood of the crew was very mellow and amiable. -Art Adams
|
