Best Dslr Camera for "cinematic film look"

>>2885677
I'm gonna guess the answer to your question is actually about shutter speed. You're trying to get that look of natural motion, not a slide show of snapshots in quick succession. What you have to do, regardless of the camera you choose, is make sure the shutter speed isn't too fast.

The basics of videography are similar to the basics of photography.

Learn about shutter speed and aperture and all that and then look at the difference between video shot at quick vs slow shutter speed.

File: 1468617393371.png (573KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

573KB, 1024x683px

>>2885677
>best camera for a cinematic look appearence videos
prepare for a thread of misinformation, bickering, and terrible advice

>>2885677
shoot 24fps at 1/24s.
crop to 21:9.
shoot flat profile and give it a yellow tint.
use 50mm f1.8 lens wide open. you probably need an nd filter for this. don't get a chink one.
or maybe get a chink one to flare it up.

>>2885677

if you want a "cinematic" look, rent a cinema camera. DSLRs are good for practice and amateur shorts, but if you actually want to make something "real" just rent gear. shooting a dog's asshole on a RED Dragon is immediately gonna look more "cinematic" than anything on a DSLR.

>>2885711
21:9 is not 2.39:1, the standard panavision ratio.
also 1/24 at 24 fps is a 0° shutter which is impossible.
also 50mm on super 35/aps-c cropped to panavision is ridiculously narrow, OP needs something around 28mm.

>>2885677
shoot 24 fps, always keep your shutter speed at 1/48 (or 1/50 if your camera can't do 1/48), set your picture profile to flat, get your white balance and exposure right (super important: you want to maximize dynamic range. make it look good in post when you're grading, not in camera), grade, add some grain simulation if you want, done.

>>2885713
This. My thought process on this topic essentially evolved from

>Movies look cinematic because of the camera, right?

to

>Movies look cinematic because of lighting and production design, right?

and finally to

>Oh, movies look cinematic because of high dynamic range and high-quality motion cadence found in cinema cameras

A fucking gorilla can shoot on Alexa and make something pretty. Buy any DSLR OP and learn to direct, then when you're ready you can rent or purchase a cinema camera.

>>2885720
>also 1/24 at 24 fps is a 0° shutter which is impossible.
Now, now. Don't start throwing math around on /p/.

File: crEifmU[1].png (5MB, 2542x1113px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 2542x1113px

Blackmagic Pocket cam (pic related was captured with it) is your cheapest option (goes anywhere from $700-$1k) for the "filmic digital" look that you'd bet from a higher end RED/Arri style camera. High dynamic range and raw video recording, plus that razor sharp fucking camera sensor, will get you some gorgeous fucking images if you know how to use it. Has a really high learning curve though and requires you to be very fluent with both filming and post production, since the footage is "flat" and needs to be color corrected. Also it doesn't take photos and has a really intense crop factor due to the 16mm sensor, so keep that in mind.

Next best option would be a Panasonic GH4 (or hacked GH2 if you wanna go even cheaper), which is a nice versatile camera for both video and photos. Doesn't have that magical high dynamic range but the sensors in all the GH cameras handle highlights really well, which aren't all blotchy and orange like the highlights in most of the lower-budget Canon cameras.

Last option would be any of the Canon Rebel cameras (T3i/T4i/T5i), pretty similar to the Panasonic GH cameras but with a few key differences. I personally hate the images that it produces because of the aforementioned blotchy orange highlights, but other than that they aren't bad cameras by any means.

Most of it is color grading/correction though, if you're good enough (or you use the right plugins/LUTs) you can make near any footage look like film. IMO the "look" doesn't matter as much as a camera's usability and versatility though, you should be focusing on the actual meat and potatoes of cinematography (lighting, camera rigging, blocking, etc) if you want your videos to look "cinematic". A lot of what makes movies look like movies is what happens outside of the camera body.

>>2885721
>A fucking gorilla can shoot on Alexa and make something pretty.
This is absolutely not true at all. I've seen some dreadful shit filmed on REDs, while some of the most gorgeous pieces of camerawork I've seen has been shot on things like the GH4.

>>2885891
Can a hacked GH2 shoot footage comparable to GH4 VLog? I want a M4/3 B-cam for my Blackmagic which can shoot stills but I'm poor at the moment.

>>2885677
>and i'm wondering which is the best camera for a cinematic look appearence videos.

It's not only a question of camera, there are a lot of smattering to know for this result.

But anyway, you need to understand how work RAW/LOG curve + Color grading.

If you have a Canon camera like 6D/70D/5D, you can already use magic lantern and shot in RAW 14bits and learn color grading on Resolve. Or else buy a camera like Blackmagic Pocket (i prefer use magic lantern because of the 35mm full frame, canon EF lens and the true 4.4.4 RAW)

>>2885891
is this the short about the guy who talks to a cabinet or desk that he built...?

think you may have been in one of my film classes. temple?

buy either a 5Diii or the 80D (not the 70D or 60D, 80D is the only canon aps-c right now sporting the new sensor), depending on budget

buy a nifty fifty and maybe a wider prime, like the 24 ef-s pancake if you go with the 80D

just start writing and shooting shorts from there. trust me you'll learn it all as you go through practice. try your best to make your shots look as cinematic as possible with the gear you got, you can definitely get good looking footage with an 80D despite what naysayers/4K enthusiasts believe. just understand its all a learning process and have fun with it. at this stage of the game you should worry about developing your skills as a writer and director. if you can make your non-acting 15-18 year old friends half-convincing, your shit will be immediately more engaging than the guy who shoots a 3 minute "cinematic" chase acene

>>2886087
to further iterate id say the 80D is still the best dslr for beginners who want to get into dslr filmmaking because:

1. its cheap
2. the sensor has been improved dramatically
3. most importantly: its by far the least cumbersome and most user-friendly DSLR for student shorts. at this stage its important to have gear that works seamlessly with your shorts so you can worry more about directing and setting up your scenes and just letting your camera do its thing. compared to something like an a6300, which will overheat and provide files that are much harder for starting filmmakers to work with their more limited laptops. dont fall for the 4k meme at this stage of the game. just get something that works.

T3i here, interested in making flashy gore flicks with my buddies. How fucked am I?

>>2886083
You mean brian temple?

>>2886090
>you can shoot 1080p with the a6300 too, anon. with your canon lenses even

>>2885677

The most important place to start is training your self to recognize the look you want, then figuring out how to get that look. When you say "Film Look" What film? Who directed it? Who was the DP? Who was the Gaffer? What camera was used? What film stock? A combination of all these things caught your eye and you wanna make that too. That's awesome. You have things you like and don't like about the movies you watch, pay closer attention to the specifics of those things.

Camera: There are several good suggestions, and anything looks good on an Arri, personally I'm partial to RED. Starting with a DSLR is a good place, and you will quickly discover the limitations of the camera, this is a good thing. You get better and move on.

Shutter angle: Start at 180 degrees (24fps / 1/48 shutter) and go from there for different effects. https://vimeo.com/57145844

Lighting: Start by learning the basic 3 point setup (key, fill, backlight) and then grow your understanding of the nuances from there.

Grading: The color grade is important, DaVinci is free ( for 1080 and 2k) and the most powerful color grade suite out right now. They recently added editing and it's a nice layout for beginners. Whatever camera you end up using, research that bastard till you're sick of it, and learn how to get as "flat" a look as possible. This will give you room for errors in post and save you SOME headaches and reshoots.

Editing: Pick your NLE; I mentioned DaVinci since you don't have to learn two programs at the same time, while being a beginner. There's also Final Cut X, Premiere Pro, and if you want to rub elbows with the LA and NY crowds there's Avid.

Sound: Fuck bro you got your hands full, get a buddy for that shit.

Experience: Get on a film set, or any set, the entry level position you're looking for is Production Assistant. It's the lowest position on the totem pole, but you get to experience every aspect of the world you're interested in.

>>2886411

Experience: Cont. Even if you end up on a total shit-show and everything goes to hell. Fuck it, you're just a PA, just don't tell anyone you worked on it. If another part of the production doesn't catch your interest, you can move up the department chain to Camera PA / Utility > 2nd AC > 1st AC > Operator > DP. You CAN go to film school, but actually being on set will fast track what you learn and won't put you in debt. Save your credit score for the gear.

If in a few years you're not a cynical jaded fuck, and are actually enjoying what you're doing and can pay the rent with it, then congratulations!
This went a little long...
References; Film industry professional for a few years now.

>>2886411
>>2886417
bullshit. from start to end.

>>2886185
i'm assuming he is asking if you attended temple university

>>2886633
calling bullshit =/= evidence to the contrary

>>2886638
I wouldn't even know where to begin, Mr. "film industry professional for a few years now".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtpIkq9-la0

I think there's a lot more great advice in this video in less time than a vast majority of DSLR beginner tutorials.

>>2886633
I'm with this guy. That actually felt a little painful to read.

>>2885720
>also 1/24 at 24 fps is a 0° shutter which is impossible.

That's actually a 360 degree shutter angle, which MIGHT work for something like a dream sequence, but has a LOT of motion blur.

>>2886847
It's impossible because traditional motion picture film cameras use the time when the shutter is closed to advance the film. A 360° or 0° shutter, however they call it, just means no shutter at all. You'd have to advance the film during the exposure time, at which point it's not really an exposure how we traditionally mean, hence why I called it "impossible". Sure, you can run a shutterless motion picture camera, but the exposure time would not be 1/24, and you would not be able to predict how each frame would look like based on this information alone, you'd need to know how the camera advances the film.

>>2886852
Except we're not talking about traditional film stock cameras, OP directly stated DSLR, we're talking about digital video cameras. This whole point is moot, and moot is a faggot, and I'm sure you can put 2 and 2 together.

>>2886790
>still doesn't provide evidence to the contrary
please anon, I'm trying to learn here.

>>2886856
Yeah, but OP also asked for a "cinematic film look", which has been estabilished since way before digital sensors were a thing.

Enlighten me on how using a shutter speed that was never used in the film days will give him film-like results.

>>2886877
Well then ..

>>2886411
>>2886417
>The most important place to start is training your self to recognize the look you want, then figuring out how to get that look. When you say "Film Look" What film? Who directed it? Who was the DP? Who was the Gaffer? What camera was used? What film stock?

This is a total waste of time. Let's say I like the look of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Let's say I research everything they used back then. And then? What should I do? Buy the old 35mm film camera? Buy the film they used? Go on the original locations (which even then hardly existed anymore)? Cast Johnny Depp? As the gaffer of FaLiLV said: "You setup with the light dummy and everything looks awful. You go with the lesser evil. And then Johnny gets on stage and everything looks just perfect."
You fail when you think that the look would merely be related to the prod. equipment and grading. It is the whole process and it begins with the stage and protagonists.
Furthermore you fail when you think that you could achieve any look with the equmipment you have available. Absolutely not. Don't even try.
The task is to work with the equipment you have and develop the best look you can achieve with it. There you should invest your time.

>Camera: There are several good suggestions, and anything looks good on an Arri, personally I'm partial to RED. Starting with a DSLR is a good place

Info = zero. You just wanted to mention that you (might) have worked with an arri and red. Thank you.

>Shutter angle: Start at 180 degrees (24fps / 1/48 shutter) and go from there for different effects.

No. You don't "start at 180°". You use the shutter-speed you need, dependant on what you're doing. 180 is at max a good recommendation for most situations.

>Lighting: Start by learning the basic 3 point setup (key, fill, backlight) and then grow your understanding of the nuances from there.

What could this even mean? "grow your understanding of nuances from there"?

(CONT)

This thread is so autistic. OP wants the film look, that can mean three primary things. Shooting at 1/50 for blur, aperture aimed for shallow depth of field, or colour-grading for mood.

It has nothing at all to do with any particular camera.

>>2885704

>>2887008

Don't understand the nuances from 3 point lighting setup. Understand what the use of lighting angles is. You can't just go by known patterns and variate them a little. Every situation is different and you have to know what you are acutally doing. Not what nuances might exist.

>Grading: The color grade is important, DaVinci is free (...) and the most powerful color grade suite out right now.

lol ... yeah, DaVinci is the most powerful grade suite out right now. Okay.

>Editing: Pick your NLE; (...) DaVinci (...) There's also Final Cut X, Premiere Pro, and if you want to rub elbows with the LA and NY crowds there's Avid.

This list displays that you are not really deep into the film industry. You seem just to know the consumer-tier softs. Shame.

>Sound: Fuck bro you got your hands full, get a buddy for that shit.

No. Wrong. You don't just "get a buddy for that shit". You have to know your shit. Even if you will in the end have a specialist for it, you still have to know about the crucial aspects, and only then people will respect you as a valuable member of a production team.
So at least read about the basic concepts of microphoning, kinds of microphones, signal-flow, a/d-convertion and even wind-shielding etc.. Better you record audio on your own and learn how it works.

>Experience: Get on a film set, or any set, the entry level position you're looking for is Production Assistant

Yeah. Very good advice. A just as good advise would be "Get on a film set, be the director of the multi-million dollar blockbuster". Would be a good thing to learn, indeed. ... gosh .. "get on a film set" ... brilliant.

> You CAN go to film school, but actually being on set will fast track what you learn and won't put you in debt. Save your credit score for the gear.

This might be the worst advise ever. Gear over education? ... omg


So. As I said, your whole text was bullshit from start to end, and I honestly doubt you are even remotely involved into the film industry.

>>2887008
>>2887016
this is full of so much more bullshit than the original post and is so much less useful. Fuck, mayne. kys. That guy actually presented a lot of good starting points for someone who wants to work in film, even if he did sound pretty green. You're just screaming NO, YOU DONT KNOW ENOUGH AND CAN'T DO ANYTHING.

...not that any of this is even related to OP's question. So--

Besides the obvious effect that color grading has, the way your lenses behave in different lighting situations is one of the biggest factors in achieving a certain look across a film. There are significant differences in rendering when you compare cooke, panavision, or sony lenses. The flare and highlight glow that still-photo lenses try so hard to correct and eliminate are often sought out in cinema. But none of that will yield a professional looking frame if your scenes aren't properly lit, and that will come with learning, experience, and experimentation. There are some excellent books out there that break down the lighting decisions of various cinematographers. They do fascinating work.

source: I work in fcken films.

>>2887127
Fuck, I didn't even answer OP's question. The basics for getting the "look" are outlined in my post above, but the camera DOES matter with digital. There's a lot that happens between your sensor and the file output that can seriously fuck your viddy (looking at you, fuji).

I see a lot of trash indie shorts being made with rabals, so it's possible. You can find good looking footage from them online. GH4's seem to be a favorite for low-budget commercials and docudrama re-creation b-roll level footage. I hear great things about A7's but I rarely see them out in the field. Mirrorless cameras are the way to go, in my opinion, because of the flexibility in adapting different vintage glass. Don't cuck yourself out of the still-photo game by falling for blackmagic.

Honestly if you need more camera than that you better be getting paid. You'll probably be renting equipment anyway.

Color grading is BY FAR the most important part of the "film look". See: https://vimeo.com/116019668

File: prisoners.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>2887466
yeah no...Roger Deakins uses almost no color grading and his films are cinematic as fuck

>>2887548
source? no film on Alexa has "almost no color grading"

>>2887548
Dennis Villeneuve said it in an interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE-4fiFXHmM
Not sure what's the exact minute but I remember him saying that Deakins shots are what he gets out of the camera and doesn't use color "timing".

He just applies the same lut to the log footage everytime and that's it.

>>2887580
lut = grade

It's the same as a preset in lightroom or whatever suite you use. Grading gets a lot more complex than that, with isolating skin tones and using animated masks, but a lut still definitely falls under the color grading umbrella.

Why have none of you noob cucks mentioned an anamorphic adapter yet?


Fucking noobs.

>>2887655
LUTS = Film emulation

That not mean we're not allowed to make a complex grade with LUTS.

Especially knowing that you can change its intensity on a node

>>2887016
I'm >>2886877 and >>2886638.
I am a different poster than >>2886411 >>2886417
so it's weird having your rants and accusations of bullshit directed at me. I was genuinely trying to learn....

>>2887680
Because wasting money for something that can easily be done in post production by adapting aspect ratio is for fucking suckers.

>>2887706
You can't get the anamorphic look in post you fucking noob.

Srsly, you are the level of talent giving advice? Kill yourself m8o.

>>2887707
sucker detected

>>2887680
Because if OP were smart enough to realize he's missing the anamorphic look we wouldn't have to tell him. He's just a newbie with the wrong shutter speed and who can't grade.

>>2887698
how could I know? .. so yeah, besides the harsh words, maybe you got the point. now you can decide to what you agree more.

>>2887696
>>2887655

I think you're both talking about the same, focusing on different sides. People can use LUTs like them Instagram/VSCO filters and call it a day.

>>2887728
Oh, so you can shoot and grade DSLR footage and make it look like a professional film? Let's see it my man

Canon 5d mark III + magic lantern raw and a fifty.