Evolution of the "video-for-film" look


Bamboopictures

Senior Member
Even as directors like Tarantino and Chris Nolan steadfastly champion filmstock, there is no turning back the industry wide trend towards digitalisation. It is therefore ironic that videoshooters spent decades trying to emulate the film-look only to arrive in a future where a majority of motion pictures are shot on video. Some may prefer to call it digital cinema, but at the heart of an Alexa is an imaging chip - not celluloid.
Early attempts at replicating a film look was hindered by CCD technology. Capture was 4:3 and 480/576 interlaced. Also there was no easy way to increase the resolution or the dynamic range recorded to videotape.

Letterboxing
The lowest hanging fruit for a DIY filmlook was simply adding a letterbox crop to video footage in post. This easily mimics how a motion picture shot on cinemascope would look on a cathode ray tube TV. When digital TV came along, DV camcorder makers introduced a a 16:9 squeeze mode which will result in a 16:9 aspect ratio FOV from a 4:3 sensor. Cheap anamorphic lens attachment also made their appearance, allowing for even wider aspect ratios.

Film Grain
When desktop video became ubiquitous, it got very easy to add imperfections found in film such as grain, scratches and judder. This merely degrades the quality of the video and is no longer popular today.

Resolution
As CMOS technology delivered higher resolutions to filmmakers, cinema sized enlargements became possible. For consumers, the HD revolution and later the 4K revolution gave us sensors that produced more nuanced color gradations and wider dynamic range that approached the look of film.

Framerate
When Peter Jackson printed the Hobbit in 48 fps, audiences complained it looked like video. That was hardly a surprise given the reduced motion blur caused by having to shoot at a higher shutter speed. Camcorder makers who catered to independent digital filmmakers were quick to introduce 24 progressive fps along side 25/30i and 50/60i framerates way back in the 90s. Shooting in progressive got rid of the telltale interlaced flicker.

DOF Adapters
A market for DOF adapters flourished before Canon 5D Mark 2 was launched. Early camcorders usually had 1/2:" or smaller sensors. So the only way to fake shallow DOF was to have a 35mm lens project an image onto a frosted glass screen first and then filming that screen with the camcorder from the rear.

Dynamic Range
The 7 to 9 stops of DR in early camcorders were a far cry from the 12-14 stops in film so video shooters try to smoothen the roll off of blown speculars using Tiffen Black Mist filters or their mother's nylon stockings. The diffusion caused by the mist filters also takes the hard edge off footage that had perfectly sharp background and forground due to the small sensor size.
Today, dynamic range can be increased by shooting in LOG profile. Easy to apply LUTs and mask tracking along with versatile manipulation of gamma curves gives video shooters a more effective way of mimicking the full DR of celluloid.

Color Grading
Color grading has greatly changed what audiences regard as a film look today.
Before digitalisation, color grading was an imprecise chemical process and used mostly for SFX reasons rather than for mere aesthetics.
But today the palettes of blockbusters, horror films, sci-fi etc can now be replicated using off-the-shelf LUTs.