DUDE LETS RUIN THE NATURAL AESTHETICS OF OUR FILM WITH TRENDY PUKE GREEN AND FART YELLOW TONES LMAO
>This film's original name was All You Need Is Kill
If you actually are grading films for a living, that's cool and all.
But that look right there and the very idea that everything needs to be color graded to hell and back is why all big movies have been looking the same these past few years.
There's one 'graded Alexa footage' look for the big films, one 'graded lower tier camera' look for indie films and one 'can't really grade things properly fuck it' look for some other indies.
It's especially sad that even movies shot on film are graded into looking like an Alexa, see Spectre for the most recent sad example.
So, this is what you want?
75% of the shit on your board is hard to look at.
You shut your mouth. MGS3 and its drab but yellow hue on everything makes it extremely captivating since it mimics harsh forest environments so realistically. After a point it becomes a stylistic feature that they keep for consistency and I just fucking love it
Im a MGS fanboy and I would eat naked snakes shit. Its one of like four things I am devoted to
I'm that guy. No that's not what I want. Increasing contrast and lowering shadows isn't helping anything. What is going on with those skin tones bro?
I know it's a crap compressed png but look at how much the image is falling apart next to his left eye there.
For me the clean image in the OP is what the film 'should' look like. It's terrible that colorists need to come up with a 'look' in post these days. This should be the director and the DP's job on set during production, with the grading being used to fix issues or enhance certain things (for example taking out green from fluorescents back in the film days if it wasn't done on set).
I masturbate to tranny porn, that's how i would do it.
>I grade films for a living...
if you really do.
What the fuck is up with the washed out contrasts in movies lately? When I watch a old as movie from the 70's or 80's, it looks great. Whenever there's a night scene from a movie post 2010, it looks like someone just turned the contrast down to one and amped up the pisscolor on everything.
Everything looks like a washed out instagram filter.
top looks better
you know why? because that's the one they decided to go with
if the scene has a piss filter, then it has a fucking piss filter. That's the intended look whether you like it or not. People who try to 'fix' pre-established color grading are LITERALLY reddit.
But he's in a battlefield with shitloads of explosions and such
It would make sense that the light should be a bit darker
Also they would have done a lot of different shoots on different days with different levels of sunlight, so it makes sense that they'd use digital effects to keep the lighting consistent
It seems everyone wants a Nolan movie.
>I want dark yellows and browns
I'm a genius.
I do cinematography and can explain part of this at least. It's to do with shooting high level digital.
Shooting film at night, unlit dark areas go slightly milky because tehre is no exposure, while areas that are slightly lit go black, see the Godfather for a good example of this.
Digital doesn't work this way, and everything is shot as raw footage (not very often) or Log format which is extremely flat and uncontrasty. You can then choose to crush the shadows or blacks in post, but the trend seems to err on the milky side I suppose. That and also many indie films don't seem to grade much at all, so the image looks very flat.
Here's a still from We Own the Night (2007), shot on film. It's a recent movie that I thought had very good night scenes. It takes place in the 80s so the outside lighting is very yellow as you say, but there's a lot of contrast and many light and dark areas in the night scenes, they have a lot of depth and I really enjoyed how it was shot/graded compared to other recent stuff.
Top is much easier on the eyes. It's not supposed to be real life, it's supposed to be expressive. That's why film is shot in 24fps instead of higher even though we long since have technology for that. You don't just take raw, full-contrast shots for everything any more than you play every instrument at the same volume in a piece of music.
Yes, yes you are. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
I believe in you.
that should do it, who is my favourite director ?
I think that while you might be able to get a contrast that's similar to that kind of 70s film stock, it's really hard to get the colors right. There's something about the stocks from that time that didn't quite get the colors right, but in an interesting way, like Red goes a bit Orange, Blue may or may not have a Magenta cast and most often Green goes slightly Cyan or Turqouise.
Don't forget if you're talking about grading digital footage it's impossible to get highlights to look as they do on film, sensors just don't work that way. Overall it looks quite desaturated and contrasty, but again, you just can't get film-like gradients in the shadows to true black on digital unless you have Alexa footage, and even then it's a gamble.
Why do you care about whether the lighting or color is realistic or not? It's a movie, a fantasy one too, not a fucking real life documentary. It's more about looking cool or setting a mood rather than being true to life.
I might as well respond to this post too so I can get my post number up on the reply list and feel special. Even more so because this guy happens to be right.
I've been out on some spooky lit days before. Ones where everything is a sickly yellow glow or yellow-green.
>never been out on a day where everything looked blue when it wasn't blue haze in the distance
have you seen Whiplash? if so, what did you think of it? most of the scenes are orangy as fuck, like if they took out the blue color entirely, excluding the exterior scenes.
>don't like post-processing color filters in your movies?
>well fuck you
>have some BLUE AND ORANGE
In the OP pic, if I look at the top I'll instantly know that there's something serious going on
If I look at the bottom, it looks like he's fallen down and can't get up
All this talk about color filters mostly revolves around the fact that most movies share the same color tone instead of any real criticism of the style in the movie itself
The correct one is the version where Somerset is the real killer
It is a meme term and has several versions of the names of the colors. Blue & orange is the wording that is used most.
This one is correct. Colors taken directly from the film.
>That and also many indie films don't seem to grade much at all, so the image looks very flat.
That explains alot, though I think it's alot down due to the limitations that digital still have and that it is just the style right now.
I guess I just miss the grainy 35mm.
If I had to guess, they're trying to evoke the way the world looks under sodium vapor lights
Blue and orange are a meme color scheming done to make shit "look better and more exciting" or whatever.
Don't click unless you want the rest of your suspension of disbelief ripped from you.
I miss grainy 35 too. Any night exteriors from 80s movies are amazing. 70s stocks weren't fast enough to shoot properly at night so they look too dark and flat. But throughout the 80s night exteriors look amazing, I mean everyone should watch Thief and see how it blows today's digital night exteriors out of the water.
It's not just sentimentalism. Or it is and it isn't. In short the differences are:
- film handles highlights better (better drop off, more organic graduation), digital handles shadows MUCH better (you can shoot 3 stops underexposed and bring it back in post like it was nothing; film loses that information more quickly so you're stuck with what you shoot, you can only push it one or two stops max and at 2 it will look funny already)
- color gradients look better on film because of the nature of analog, it doesn't shoot 8-bit or 10-bit or whatever you shoot on digital, it records light chemically rather than mathematically. Technically this could be solved by improvements to digital technology though, but will result in increasingly larger files
- resolution-wise there's basically no difference at this point
- there's something hard to describe about how film handles areas that are out of focus; again it's to do with analog chemical development, where the 'fuzzy' area looks more natural as it does to the human eye
- finally, film is naturally much softer. Shooting digital on today's lenses the image is crazy sharp. Here it's not about resolution (since 35mm is at around 6k resolution), it's about how digital handles the situation, everything feels very very sharp and you have to use filters or very soft light to attenuate it. Note how in some older black and white films, because the film stock and lenses were soft, DP's sometimes even used hard light on women's faces and it still felt 'filmic', because it was naturally attenuated while recording
That actually is sort of true, not because of any deliberate racism behind it but because actors were all white so the standard stock and lighting didn't work on other skin tones. Haskell Wexler had to take special care to light Sidney Poitier differently on the set of In the Heat of the Night.
Besides, early film also had problems with blue eyes until James Wong Howe figured out how to darken the surrounding with cloth until better stock was made.
Interesting stuff. That Side By Side documentary went into this a little, though it seemed to be leaning more towards digital.
I'll watch Thief tonight. Wanted to do that for some time now.
For a long time I kept trying to figure out why movies from the 80s and 90s looked so much better. At first I thought it had to do with being shot on film, but plenty of modern day films are shot on film and they look just as off. Then I realized how extensive color grading was.
Literally fuck color grading and filters. It should be used minimally for stylistic choices and to fix errors done during production. Not to make everything look muddy or blue.
I didnt watch that movie untill last year and I was just blown away by the opening scenes.
Is there anyway to emulate that pre digital Mann look with digital or is that a hopeless endevour?
Side By Side is a pretty good watch yeah. Ideally both mediums should cohabitate, as they're each good for a different thing and it should be an artistic decision on the part of the director and DP as to what to use. We'll see how it goes now that Kodak is back on its feet
Hopeless endeavor at the end of the day, see the other comments for an explanation as to why. It's not about 'we're not there yet', sensors are not really designed to work that way. You can approximate the look of course, but it won't feel the same in motion, from shot to shot, etc.
And to the point about the prevalence of grading, again it's to do with how the process of shooting works today. I will give an example:
You have a simple interior dialogue scene between a man and a woman. They sit next to a window which is the main light source.
On film you would decide what f stop to shoot at to decide your depth of field, then adjust the window with plastic filters to bring it down to the right level for the faces. you then might fill in the opposite side of the face with extra light to lower contrast as desired (more contrasty for the man, less so for the woman usually). Then add some lights to pick up the background so a greater or lesser extent depending on the scene. Here then the contrast and light levels are basically set in the camera, with potential adjustments in the lab. But technically you could skip 'grading' altogether.
Now in digital the process could be the same, only you'd use less and smaller lights because sensors are more sensitive than film for the most part. The problem comes with shooting in Log compression as this flattens everything. This is done so as to get the most information possible into the digital file. What this allows you to do is push and pull the highlights, shadows and colors in post to a great degree. Thus you can start with a fairly flat image with a contrast ratio of 2:1 or 4:1 and push it in post to 16:1 or whatever because you can choose to use or discard the information you have recorded. Because of this you can never just skip grading because then your film will just be dull gray. And because of that, there is much more of a temptation to try this and that look, moving away from the original image.
my version, the only thing I don't like is the eyes are too bright/green but whatevs
Speaking of horrible filters. Ever watch J.Edgar, could barely see this shit
Don't worry, RealD, and IMAX3D glasses will make it worse.
I tried watching a few '60 fps' vid..every 3-5th frame was a copied blur image. Watching it after years of breaking down frames for gif making ruptured my learned autism. Are all 60's like that or did I just catch a 'forced/created' false one?
If you guys are into this stuff you should check this documentary, it's nice
remember that dress color thing that was the talk of the social media world for about a week? Turns out not everyone see's the same color the same. There are slight differences in the perception of pigments cause by the actual brain/eyes. There is no wrong or right answer according to some scientists
You can thank the Coen brothers on this, because since this movie's success every director has attempted to copy the method.
>overcast + the smoke from the battle field
DUDE AUTO WHITE BALANCE IN PHOTOSHOP = GOOD GRADING LMAO
Ok guys, you can stop pretending to be bad. Show your true power levels.
This one was captured straight out of Criterion's Monumental Kînô Vault, restored from an original Kodachrome reel.
I can top that, this is from the original negatives
It is true same with /gd/ our boards are shit. I went to school for graphic design and own a business. The stuff that comes out of both are cringe worthy I think I have seen only 2 good resumes off /gd/. /ic/ is way better at correcting images than /gd/ is it is sad.
Source won't allow to change it through curves without fucking up the rest of the image. One has to sit down and mask fire and sky in order to fully restore the natural look. I bet most of the fire is CG and was rendered that way.
>The green was added in later DVD releases to match the sequels. It wasn't there originally.
This. And it activates my autism so hard we will never get the original color grading on blu-ray
there have been previous attempts, it is no easy undertaking
Here, fixed it. Pretty much what any movie should look like. I don't know why movie studios are afraid to have colors in their movies, its almost as if they stick to one color tone to hide the shittiness of their movies.
Howdy y'all i heard you want a star wars that's like the OT so we kept the old scene transitions but still put shitty filters over everything.
It does make perfect sense that Log compression would be the default when shooting, and there are rather a lot of amateur still photographers who use multiple exposures combined with stacking software to approximate it. There is something satisfying about an image in which no detail is either lost in shadow or obliterated in glare, and in some ways it's truer to life that way, since the eye's dynamic range is much higher than the best display's.
Dunno but criterion looks best. Italian version looks like vanilla. I'm not against digital grading as long as it's done well and doesn't make the picture look unnatural and weird..
ITT, a bunch of weebs who know nothing about both film and grading, argue color schemes.
I know, just check out the difference in colors with the old DVD version:
Looks better in green. The green tinge as a way to differentiate between the real world and the Matrix was always a great way to separate them. Especially when you first see Neo wake up on the Nebuchadnezzar and you can SEE the green tinge disappear.
lets go back to a better time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvLcNPcceX0
But the real world was already tinted blue to differentiate it from The Matrix, not to mention it was obviously an extremely different landscape (you know, with the sentinels and wastelands everywhere). The reason the matrix wasn't ultra green before the sequels was because, at the start of the movie, the audience did not yet know that the Matrix was even a simulation. It's supposed to be like a revelation, not "HEY EVERYONE, YOUR WORLD IS REALLY GREEN AND YOU'LL NEVER GUESS WHY." It's fucking retarded to go back and change this shit and the sequels were so bad they shouldn't even be considered canon anyway
You can use an AviSynth script to de-green the whole movie, but it wont work very well because each scene has a different amount of color grading added to it. It's an extremely time consuming process, getting it all to look even. Hence why >>65096697 still looks green as fuck compared to >>65097008
Man, this webm just reminded me why I love the Wachowskis. Somebody needs to give them a proper budget again so they can making something uncompromised by financial constraints. Ideally with a good set of editors and producers to rein them in.
My bad guys
Might be too blue-ish but this feels right to me
Photography is pleb tier in comparison to filmmaking and any decent filmmaker should already know everything about it anyway so don't pretend to be hot shit unless you are a filmmaker yourself.
I heard from the editor of Sharktopus 2/my editing professor that thanks to Adobe fucking everyone over with CC that the industry is pretty much back solely to Avid after the Final Cut Pro meme died.
Maybe if you are planning to do a serious project there are better options but I even worked with Vegas before and if used properly you can achieve pretty much everything that premiere has to offer. You can even import after effects no problem.
James Cameron here, I fixed it for you guys. Now it actually looks like real life. No need to thank me.
So did the Indiana Jones series, IMO. But yeah, The Fifth Element is like the go-to movie used to show off the colors of recently-calibrated displays
Fuck this movie had god-tier battle scenes. I don't like Cruise's cult connections but I'll be forever thankful that he continues to support mid-budget-tier one-off sci-fi movies as well as trendy blockbuster sequels.
there are only like three overhead establishing-shots like that (and they all only last a few seconds), but they're so beautiful. I wish the director would make more movies, but producers hate him because he's lazy or something
Forgive the shit bitrate. It's late and I don't feel like fucking with video size/export settings.
It's not even the sweeping overhead shots for me, it's the claustrophobia and the panic inside the aircraft etc., the director, editor et al captured the feeling of total unpreparedness and the pace at which their situation is changing so perfectly, it honestly gives me the same heart-racing feeling as the beach landing in Saving Private Ryan.
thanks James, but there's still too much red for it to look anything like real life
I feel ya man. It's my favorite sci fi movie since the 80s to be honest
The low bitrate kinda fucked up the colors, but you're not wrong.
The problem with the yellow filter is that it kinda blends in with the reds.
The best attempts in my opinion are
>that flat perspective that brings everything in towards the camera because the background is blurred to the point of reducing parallax
>that unsteady camera bobbing up and down as it moves so the movement on screen is occurring in more than one direction at once
>that visceral acting
>that god-tier mech suit
fucking based movie
I preferred the blu ray too for a lot of the scenes. But they really really over-did the green effect in a lot of places. It should be subtle, not "Hay everyone it's GREEEEN, like a computer screen, get it??"
The blu ray versions of the scenes in the subway or any dark hallways are awful looking. They turned the brown walls into a baby-shit green color that somehow was the same shade as the color of the agents black suits
oy gevalt you goyim are so crazy, this is how you do it
It's a troll image but the tools that are listed are used to make images on top look like the ones on the bottom. Most film students get their panties wet over yellow shit like that.