shitty color grading thread

>>80064024
artistic vision

Piss filters are the new thing in cinema, they just caught up to a decade old videogame trend

>>80064024

a lot of the time what you are seeing is shitty conversions to different formats and you're viewing them on displays that can't display accurate color.

practically everything looks better in the theater

>>80064024
If you want to start a thread like this go to >>>/g/, people here are retarded and the most sophisticated ones are the kodi streamers.

File: sicario2.png (2MB, 1920x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1600px

>>80064069
It's not just the piss filters though. They just totally ignore values and make the whole thing look flat as hell.

>>80064092
This is total bullshit. It's the same when you watch it in the theater. If this were true then then things shot on film would have the same issue and they don't.

>>80064217

>It's the same when you watch it in the theater. If this were true then then things shot on film would have the same issue and they don't.

But it's not the same, anon. For example, the Matrix series is well known for color casts in the discs that weren't in the original film. Also film format doesn't matter because the reels are scanned to digital for transfer.

Anyway, your thread could use a few (You)'s

>>80064024
bottom is so much better holy shit

>>80064024
Both of these are meme color grading and equally distracting if you are looking for them. The bottom one is not any more natural than the top.

>>80064413
>>>80064024 (OP)
> The bottom one is not any more natural than the top.

Please get out

>>80064345
>But it's not the same, anon.

for the most part it is.

>, the Matrix series is well known for color casts in the discs that weren't in the original film

that was a creative decision that was made for the home video release, not an issue of format or accurate color. Also the matrix wasn't shot digitally.

>Also film format doesn't matter because the reels are scanned to digital for transfer.

Are you retarded? Film format wouldn't matter if the color graders on digitally-shot movies were actually good at what they do but they're not. They transfer to film to digital AFTER it's gone through all of the chemical processes to develop it. The image that comes out of a digital camera is intentionally flat in order for the colorist to have as much information as possible to work with when grading. It is then up to the colorist to make it look good which they frequently fail at. Furthermore digital cameras capture light in a linear manner as opposed to a logarithmic manner. You CAN make digital look like film but it takes a colorist or DP that really knows their craft and frequently the people color grading digitally-shot movies don't, so they end up looking very flat in general and often severely overexposed in outdoor shots.

>>80064413
It's oversaturated but the skin tones look a lot better than in the top one.

>>80064545
>Furthermore digital cameras capture light in a linear manner as opposed to a logarithmic manner.
Arri's capture in logc which is not linear. Also, camera linearity is a meme, they're all non-linear as hell.

>>80064510
Its still heavily graded and manipulated.
No footage looks like that straight out of the camera.
Blue/Orange is still artificial as the top one.
You're just more used to it.

>>80064622
>Blue/Orange is still artificial as the top one.
Nothing wrong with artificial look. People don'y like reality.That's why OOTFs exist

File: kinocorrection.jpg (1MB, 1920x1592px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1592px

>>80064024
too contrasty. eye straining.

here is kino filter, much smooth contrast. you can see the negro now.

There's literally nothing wrong with over saturation

>>80064545

>Are you retarded? Film format wouldn't matter if the color graders on digitally-shot movies were actually good at what they do but they're not. They transfer to film to digital AFTER it's gone through all of the chemical processes to develop it.

You're implying that corrections aren't done after scan or that color depth and colorspace in the format we view online are even remotely close to the original

Compare a film that you've seen in the theater, bought on hard format and watched on streaming and you'll see what I'm gettting at.

>The image that comes out of a digital camera is intentionally flat in order for the colorist to have as much information as possible to work with when grading. It is then up to the colorist to make it look good which they frequently fail at.

The OP is implying that Sicario looks awful and it did not look awful in screening.

>that was a creative decision that was made for the home video release, not an issue of format or accurate color. Also the matrix wasn't shot digitally.

I guess this is a tough argument because there are a lot of versions of it floating around now

>capture light in a linear manner as opposed to a logarithmic manner.

This is camera dependent

>>80064722
Went too far, looks like a cheap TV show

>>80064024

they dont. you have a shitty $200 screen

>>80064722
Way too contrasty, the hair on his neck looks like a black hole.

PS. Unless your display is calibrated to within 1 Delta ICtCp then you can't talk shit about the look of movies.

big movies can't look natural or gritty any more. Blame Tony Scott and Jerry Bruckheimer.

>>80064797
Apart from skin tones. We're naturally more sensitive to changes in skin tone saturation because that's how we read each other's emotional states. Push the saturation too much and the actors looks constantly flustered.

You're arguing against the decision of a 13 oscar-nominated cinematographer

I guess you know better

>>80064805
which it is.

looks like tv show because is bad lightning, not because editing. editing made it evident.

File: IMG_2420.jpg (97KB, 979x1023px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 979x1023px

The only thing worse than bad color correction is when they do it retroactively. It's the reason I still keep my LOTR DVDs around, the Blu-Ray release is fucked into the blue spectrum.

Top is the Blu-Ray, bottom is DVD.

>>80064024
All digital films are graded. No movie you see has the original grade it was shot on, because it's always shot with the purpose of changing it later.

>>80064868
It's not the cinematographer that colored the movie, it's the colorist.

>>80064805
>>80064722

Yeah

Oh boy, a "people don't understand color grading" thread

>>80064830
yeah, vital plot information is stored in neck shadows. silly person.

>>80064903
All films are graded, period. Choosing the right kind of film stock for your film was a part of the grading process.

>>80064069
>>80064217

It's because modern filmmakers are using digital cameras, which default to an extremely bland low-contrast output, but they're too fucking lazy to actually rebalance it

>>80064024
B+

>>80064927
No nigger face ever contained vital information. But if you're trying to make a good looking image, you went too far with it.

>>80064895
>blu ray
>is blue
kinoetry

>>80064907

This is dodging the point, because many DPs do play a role in color look and a lot of what gets in camera has to do with lighting which the DP has control of. You are literally monitoring while shooting.

another cuck thread

>>80064895
Why the fuck do they do this shit, i used to configure my colors because of this and then the next movie was wrong o always thought something was wrong with my screen

>>80064024
both look unnatural

>>80064962
The camera output is actually really nice and contrasty, but your screen can't show all that contrast simultaneously, so it has to be crushed. A 14-15 f-stop camera sensor image can't be shown directly on a 10 f-stop TV or 11 f-stop cinema projector.

it's a "my monitor is shit but I haven't realized it yet" thread.

>>80064907
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pla_pd1uatg

4:00

>>80065004
Except that's not really true. Read Harry Matthias's The Death and Rebirth of Cinema. In the old days the DPs would know the response curve of their film stock and could plan accordingly. They don't have that luxury with digital cameras, where the sensor's response curve is a secret.

>>80064801

>The OP is implying that Sicario looks awful and it did not look awful in screening.

It had the same flat look in screening that it had on the blu-ray.

>>80064801
>>80064618

ALL digital cameras capture light in a linear manner because that's how digital cameras work. LogC is just a logarithmic curve that is applied to the digital image, it doesn't mean the camera itself captures LIGHT in a logarithmic manner

>>80065102
Yeah, I've spoken with a few colorists. They all have their favored look and directors largely depend on their opinions. One even admitted to having a slider which is not attached to anything, it's just there to make the director happy that the colorist is changing something closer to their vision when in reality the image stays the same.

>>80064722
way too bright, you killed all the weight and tension

>>80065139
>ALL digital cameras capture light in a linear manner because that's how digital cameras work.
Except it's not, they still have a toe and the knee. They're much smaller and motivated by the pixel readout noise, but they're there.

LogC is more than just encoding. Arri's pixels have dual exposure.

File: San.Andreas.2015.1080p.BluRay.x264-SPARKS.mkv_snapshot_00.24.28_[2017.02.27_22.18.13]-Recovered.png (2MB, 1920x800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x800px

>>80065122
They do have that luxury because they can pretty much give it any response curve they want in post.
A DP who actually knows what he's doing can get digital to look almost exactly like film. Case in point: Steve Yedlin's work on San Andreas. Pic related.

>>80064024
The same reason they film in 24fps, to make it feel less real and more like a movie

>>80065318
I wasn't objecting to the fact they have this ability. I was objecting to the fact you said many DPs had that knowledge. On the inside, the majority of seasoned DPs are still baffled by digital cameras but they have to use them.

>>80065218
>color grading gives weight and tension

You're trying to contrive import where none exists. Yes it might "subtly" add that feeling, but it also blatantly washes out the picture.

If you guys want so bad to see realistic looking movies you should watch british cinema and fuck off.

>>80065448
Well you just admitted color grading does give you a certain, subtle feeling which is important for the overall feel of the film. The top picture looks way less washed out than the bottom one, leading me to believe you either have a shitty monitor, or simply don't know what you're talking about.

>>80065448
>You're trying to contrive import where none exists.

Watch A Single Man

>>80065598
>resorting to semantics

If I wanted to see the film through a shitty filter I'd close my right eye to see through my color blind left eye

>>80064024
Didn't that dude learn to stay away from white women?

>>80065638

>A Single Man

K I N O
I
N
O

>>80065448
>caring more about contrast than emotional impact of a movie
I want you out of my 4chan right now.

File: Sicario 2015 1080p BluRay x264 AC3-JYK.mkv_snapshot_00.01.01_[2017.03.04_17.05.10].png (3MB, 1920x800px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x800px

>>80065327
>they give it totally flat values in order to make it look like a movie
except movies shot on film don't have this problem because Color labs actually know what they're doing while most digital colorists seem to have no clue.

>>80065539
It's not about them looking realistic, it's about them looking GOOD. I'm not just talking about color. The biggest problem for me is the flat values. I mean what DP or colorist honestly looks at pic related and says "yep, it's good to go!"

File: dense motherfucker.png (447KB, 720x528px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 720x528px

This autist again
Can't you realize that colour's affect the audience perception of a scene and altering that perception is literally the entire point of cinema?

>>80065787
Show me a single peer-reviewed study that color grading in this manner changes how an audience perceives and rates a film.

>>80065830
Are you really arguing that colour doesn't impact emotional states?

>>80065885
Are you making claims based on nothing but your own feelings?

>>80065830
This is what happens when autists try to discuss art.

File: The.Matrix.1999.35mm.1080p.Cinema.DTS.v2.0.mkv_snapshot_01.42.00_[2016.08.18_23.54.35].png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>80064545
>>80064801

>>80065728

>except movies shot on film don't have this problem because Color labs actually know what they're doing while most digital colorists seem to have no clue.

i feel like part of what is happening here is with the advance of dynamic range in the sensors people don't know what to do with all the detail. stuff shot in film usually doesn't have shadow detail, so when people see everything in the shadows, the look appears flat.

>>80065895
Do they ban google at your retard ranch?

>>80064024
Top feels more I don't know, cinematic?

Just feels better. Get over it.

>LE I WANT A PERFECTLY REALISTIC COLOR CONTRAST BECAUSE I'M A RETARD INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING WHY CINEMATOGRAPHERS USE COLOR GRADING

Maybe one day you'll grow up and actually understand how movies are made.

File: basketball shorts_4.png (2MB, 2106x1116px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2106x1116px

>>80065830

>>80065830
>>80065975
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T LINK ONE!

You've fallen for the meme of color grading. There is literally no proof that different grades as OP shows influences how a person processes and reacts to a film.

>>80065263
>log C is more than just encoding

http://www.arri.com/camera/alexa/workflow/working_with_arriraw/mastering/gamma_choice/

>"LogC is a so-called scene-based encoding"

The Arri group website itself says otherwise.

>>80064024
Why are niggers so fucking greasy?

>>80065967
>stuff shot in film usually doesn't have shadow detail
This is inaccurate

The negative has quite a lot of shadow detail, which then gets lost in the usual process neg -> interpositive -> internegative -> release print.

They usually go for the extra detail in blu-ray releases of old movies, which fucks up original artistic vision

>>80066077

>This is inaccurate
>The negative has quite a lot of shadow detail, which then gets lost in the usual process neg -> interpositive -> internegative -> release print.

sure, sure i understand and agree. i mean more in the sense of the delivered product. what i mean is that there are plenty of times i shoot now where the camera sees way better than i do, and the image looks weird to me. i can't be the only one who thinks like this.

>>80066037
There is a difference between color grading and modern """color grading"""

>>80064024
Pretty sure Deakins knows what he was doing with the colours for this film.

>>80064024
Having them side by side like that really highlights the difference in skin tone of the African and European. Imagine the view of observing her griping his large erected manhood in the palm of her small, yet supple hands. It would watch like the opposite ends of the color spectrum coming together to perform some ritual dance with each other that is meant to replenish the soul. In this ritual, Black represented the hardness and aggression of man, and her hands representing the empathy and softness of woman. You can't help but to think that these two opposites belong together, as if the unison and stability of the world is dependent on the relationship between the African male and the European female.

File: The Lord of the Rings - The Fellowship of the Ring (2001).mkv_snapshot_101.16.20_[2017.03.04_23.51.57].jpg (800KB, 1920x1800px) Image search: [Google]

800KB, 1920x1800px

>>80065007

Even in the "normal" version, there are loads of sequences where they've color graded it to an extreme.

just take the rivendel part as an example

>>80066234
No I'm sure an autistic on /tv/ knows more than one of the greatest living cinematographers.

>>80066234
IF IT'S NOT REALISTIC IT'S SHIIIIIIIIIIIIT

>>80066292

There has to be a logical reason for choices like this. Is it a result of gearing for the lowest common denominator displays?

>>80066302
I've won an Oscar at the Sci-Tech awards, what was Deakins won?

>>80065728
except it worked in sicario

>>80066292
this is okay
>>80064895
this looks like shit

File: San.Andreas.2015.1080p.BluRay.x264-SPARKS.mkv_snapshot_01.19.50_[2017.02.27_23.02.58]2.png (3MB, 1920x800px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x800px

>>80066234
I'm not even talking about the colors, my problem is more the values than anything else. And in terms of grading digitally-shot films Deakins seems to have no clue.

Digitally-shot films can look like pic related if the DP has proper understanding and oversight over the grading.

>>80066358

With the specific case of rivendel, it is a deliberate artistic choice to create a sense of dusky autumn to represent the end times of the elves.

File: millisad.jpg (91KB, 950x643px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 950x643px

>>80064024
>buy new monitor
>tfw colour grading so inconsistent and shit that you think you have your colour settings wrong

Do these people even go to school or are they all 'self-taught'?

File: basketball shorts_3.png (3MB, 2410x1284px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2410x1284px

>>80066446
>watching movies on your monitor

>>80066401
Maybe the flat values used are intentional, not everything has to look like film now given the flexibility afforded by digital tools. Deakins has been using digital for a long time and is an advocate for it after all.

>>80066446

>not calibrating your monitor and recalibrating your video player to match

File: millithumbs.jpg (24KB, 615x409px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 615x409px

>>80066582
Not all of us are rich.

>>80066637
>missing the point

>>80066631
>Maybe the flat values used are intentional
>literally "it's intentionally bad!"

Having proper values simply a basic element of visual aesthetics. It's literally just straight-up bad cinematography.

>>80064024
digital is cancer
35mm FILM all the way

>>80066732
I thought Deakins did good work in Sicario so it's not a problem to me.

>>80066771
>digital is cancer

It wouldn't be if the color graders were actually good at what they do.

http://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/DisplayPrepDemo.html

Steve Yedlin is basically the only DP who is actually able to get digital footage to look almost exactly like film.

>>80066771
this desu

>>80066802
The lighting and composition and all that were great but the values were horrifically flat. Which is a shame because he actually did pretty well with the values in Prisoners although it did look a little flat in some scenes.

>>80066934
Although i will admit it was mainly the outdoor scenes that looked like shit.

>>80066401

He was literally the DOP on the first digitally graded film e v e r

>>80066771
>not 70mm

C U C K

File: 1487374220117.jpg (374KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 1200x1600px

>>80067153

>implying super 16 doesn't deliver the most immediate kino truth.

>>80067148
>He was literally the DOP on the first digitally graded film e v e r

You're a fucking retard. O Brother Where art Thou was digitally-graded but it was shot on film. Totally different can of worms.

File: 1488670061170.jpg (3MB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1200x1600px

>>80067283
"no"

>>80065956
I want this

>>80067667
too bad you are poorfag pleb, this is only for the 733t private trackers, invite only motherfucker HAHAHAHAHAHA

>>80065830
this HAS to be bait

File: aededa8718d283e5854e6ebf9e6c5af6.jpg (230KB, 1600x1082px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1600x1082px

>>80067663

DELET THIS

Most movies and shows do it since it helps counteract the cheap lighting look a lot of modern HD content has.

>>80064024
if you actually think the bottom looks better just because it's more realistic you are a pleb with no artistic vision

>>80065728
>Complaining about the image quality
>Downloads shit x265 meme encodes

kys desu

>>80067859
>>80067825

how can something this based be made in today's times

>>80067847

not that guy, but x265 is coming and it can't be stopped

>>80065448
you are an idiot who knows nothing about film

>>80067906
>but x265 is coming and it can't be stopped
W E W lad you should do some fucking reading before you comment on a subject that you don't know about.

File: finale.jpg (1MB, 1920x2495px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x2495px

>>80065451
This is actually good though, it's closer to what Leone intended the film to look like.

>>80065451
I'm OK with this.

>>80067713
Invite me then.
My ratio is >3.

>>80067978
That's total bullshit. People didn't even put piss filters on their movies back then.

>qualityfags

File: kinocorrection correction.png (3MB, 1920x1517px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1517px

>>80064722
you are like a baby

File: the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-clint-eastwood.jpg (104KB, 1019x436px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1019x436px

>>80068080
You're telling me that you think this looks better?

>>80064722
I'd love to stick my cock into Emily Blunts mouth.

>>80064924
Explain it

>>80068218
I'll kick your ass

>>80064024
If you invent a job called "colorist", the colorists are going to color things really fucking hard. If their work isn't obvious people might figure out that it's useless. You see the same bullshit from "designers".

>>80068168
>>80067978
>>80065451
Italian Bluray is obviously closest to what Sergio wanted
https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=4088&d2=4091&s1=37965&s2=38013&i=6&l=0

>>80068168
There hasn't been a single home video release of that movie yet that actually has a Color-accurate transfer.

File: vlcsnap-2017-03-05-11h05m43s201.png (2MB, 1920x834px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x834px

>>80068312
And that's the exact same one I have, the one with the yellow-tint.

>>80068325
Which is why the yellow-tint one is the closest to the intended look, and thus makes it the superior version.

>>80064024
>emily blunt will NEVER step on your balls
just die in my sleep already
( ._.) ( ;_;)

>every color thread
>no one agrees on anything
>everyone acts like an expert
>anons corrections look way worse than the original

I've met literally hundreds of film buffs and partied with people from 2 of the best film schools in the country and color grading hasn't come up once in conversation. Are you guys actually autistic?

>>80068567
We pay to watch these shitty coloured films. The customer is always right. Except that normies don't give a fuck so every movie looks like op's top pic which makes me throw up just looking at it

>>80064024
>why do color graders on digital movies suck at their jobs so hard?

They don't. It's just a stylistic choice.

>>80068567
>people who go to art schools
>capable of judging the industry they hope to work in

art students, be it film or plastic, are notoriously retarded when it comes to judging their respective media.

that said, yes, most people who go on rants about color grading are autistic to a degree. doesn't mean they're wrong, because the piss filter looks horrible.

>>80064510
He's right though. The only time you ever see true-black in real life is in darkness.

>>80064069

you can blame david fincher

>watch predator bluray
>arnie and black dude turned into wax

File: Predator Blu-ray Comparison.jpg (170KB, 1094x724px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1094x724px

>>80068942
kek

>>80068876
>>80068710

>because the piss filter looks horrible.

Yet it looks better than 99% of the suggestions in these threads. I don't understand the rage towards something that's logistically impossible to fix.

>>80066049
Are you this dumb?

File: vape ani.jpg (216KB, 910x878px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 910x878px

>>80069117
>I don't understand the rage towards something that's logistically impossible to fix.

>>80069117
that's because this site is full of rejects and talentless hacks, not unlike hollywood. doesn't mean it can't be better.

File: 1408123333981.jpg (40KB, 288x492px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 288x492px

>>80069024

File: gbu.png (3MB, 1920x1854px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1854px

>>80068509
>Which is why the yellow-tint one is the closest to the intended look, and thus makes it the superior version.

except it's not. The original film does not have any yellow tint. Furthermore nobody put piss filters on their movies during the 70's. How can that be the original intended look when piss filters weren't even a thing when it was made? The only thing it might be closer in is the values

look at pic related. Top is mondo blu ray, bottom is taken from a screening of the original film.

the initial blu ray release had values that were too flat. The mondo is too yellow while fucking with the values. The piss filter remastered release has good values, but shit colors

>>80068509
The piss filter blu ray is not the mondo blu ray.

>>80069024
lmao its like tf2

>>80064895
top picture is edited though. I mean, there's absolutely a blue tint on the EE blu ray, but I just checked my copy on that exact shot and its not nearly as blue

>>80069207
>doesn't mean it can't be better.

Do explain how "it" could be better in a way that is consistent with the tastes of people who give a fuck about color grading when the only people who give a shit can't agree on anything.

Color grading is okay as long as its done before release. Skin tones should look normal with respect to the lighting. It should look exposed properly. Someone with a degree in photography, color theory, and technical knowlege of color spaces should be checking it on multiple monitors. Its okay to make it the way the director wants.

If you are scanning a movie, the final product should be checked to look like the original film on a standard monitor. It should be done by an expert of the machines, software, and color spaces, and not an artist. If they are restoring color, they have to make a best guess.

What is not okay is the re-coloring of the Matrix for Blu-Ray. That movie was already color adjusted so now its double fucked. Its also not okay to wreck photography that was carefully done by a camera operator and lighting experts.

>>80067978
My only problem with the blu-ray release of this film is that they only did the """"director's cut""""" which just added shitty unnecessary scenes that had undergone awful deterioration over the years, and they had to dub them over with the old ass actors.

>>80069117
>logically impossible to fix
what the hell are you talking about?

>>80069024
How dare we question the oh so wise people of Hollywood. We should know better and swallow everything they push into us! Im sure it's just a personal thing that i think that looks like complete shit and that the artistic intelligence of the people responsible cannot be questioned

>>80069419
>>80069305

ITT: Autism

OP doesn't like that there is a black man and a white girl who dont look different enough, obviously some kind of SJW cuck scheme. Colorization in film needs to keep the races separate.

This entire thread had nothing to do with color, light, film, digital sensors, or cinema. This thread was OPs autistic race paranoia.

>>80069428
you havin a stroke m8?

I'm not against the principle of color grading but I'm certainly sick of the trend that gives us this blue-dark filter like in the OP. It makes everything so heavy, so suffocated. I don't understand why it's still a thing after so many years, how come the people in the industry who spend hours and hours looking at these still not realize how offending to the senses it is

File: Day2Nidl.jpg (31KB, 640x332px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 640x332px

>>80069024
they made carl weathers look like melted chocolate

>>80064024
A huge chunk of this film took place in Phoenix. The place I am from, and have lived my entire life. I can tell you with out any doubt the colorization choices had to be an artistic choice to create feeling.

Having lived in Phoenix and the Sonora Desert, I can tell you that alot of days, that's just how things look in pictures. The dust in the air creates a brownish, reddish, yellowish haze that, in this movie really made me feel at home. It wasn't over the top Tony swan dive Scott. It was just enough to make me feel like I was back on the desert. I was in Denver at the time and saw it with friends.

Op, its called art. Dont complain about the color of the paint or how the painter holds the paint brush. Silly and outlandish.

Your bottom image would look great if the movie took place in Washington State or Canada where the air is fresh and clean.

>>80069024
Greetings, Witcher

>>80069658

Implying you don't want a taste of that warm chocolate.

File: 1474430571424.gif (3MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x270px

>>80064024
>implying color isn't subjective
How old are you?
The shot you posted is meant to be a drab interior. The green values have been accentuated in an attempt to convey oppressive florescent lighting - which photographs green. It gives the subtle effect of making characters look unattractive and sickly - clearly intentional as the film mentions numerous times that her job is taking a physical toll on her.

Grow the fuck up.

>>80069672
>Op, its called art. Dont complain about the color of the paint or how the painter holds the paint brush.

Look at this fucking pleb

>>80069672
Except that this would also happen if it was based/filmed on Washington and Canada

>>80064024
>HURRR WHY DOESN'T HER FACE LOOK RED WHEN PHOTOGRAPHED UNDER GROSS OFFICE LIGHTS

Holy fuck you're stupid

>>80069719
Got examples?
This is specifically an office interior.
>>80069707
is correct

>>80069719
I wasn't talking about that shot in particular I was talking about the look of the movie in general being set in the desert.

Your talking about a hypothetical movie with no evidence.

>>80064024
Serious question: how old are you?

>>80069305
by not passing images through a piss filter.

File: 1483861280654.jpg (146KB, 400x808px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 400x808px

>>80064024
>OP actually prefers the bottom one
lol
Show me a boring office that gives people's skin warm tones

>>80069717

Only plebeians are crass enough to even bother talking about class distinction in general conversation.

>>80064024
Bottom one looks way worse

>>80069707
Fucking this.
Sick of people making things look "better" by adding more warmth and saturation to any old frame they choose. THIS IS A FUCKING OFFICE. IT IS SUPPOSED TO LOOK GREEN AND UNATTRACTIVE. FLOURESCENT LIGHTS LOOK LIKE SHIT. Your eyes correct to them in real life but the movie is choosing to depict them as they are.

>>80068825
>just a stylistic choice.
The choice can be bad. Their monitor can be calibrated improperly. I've seen people change the color just because they can.

>>80065728

this exposure is so jacked holy shit

its like someone slid highlight recovery to the maximum

>>80069859
That doesn't answer the question.

>>80069468
Nice persecution complex.

Bottom looks like shit but you're autistic.

>>80069926
>Your eyes correct to them in real life but the movie is choosing to depict them as they are.

lol at this retard

>>80069859
You're an idiot.

>>80069672
>Having lived in Phoenix and the Sonora Desert, I can tell you that alot of days, that's just how things look in pictures. The dust in the air creates a brownish, reddish, yellowish haze that, in this movie really made me feel at home. It wasn't over the top Tony swan dive Scott. It was just enough to make me feel like I was back on the desert. I was in Denver at the time and saw it with friends.

it's not even the colors that bother me nearly so much as the lack of proper values

>B.Op, its called art. Dont complain about the color of the paint or how the painter holds the paint brush. Silly and outlandish.

So if painter makes a painting that looks like shit you can't criticize it? Also your argument doesn't really hold much water when even the people who made the movie realized they fucked up the color timing which is why they redid it for the 4K blu ray.

>>80070006
he's right, though?
Ever heard of a color thermometer? You can measure color. Florescent lights are green. If you sit in green lights all day your eye white balances them.

It's a fucking Border/Drugs War movie. You wanted Mary Fucking Poppins coloring. OP should shoot himself and then fall out of a plane.

>>80070062

Your brain technically is doing the adjusting. But he is right. You do get used to the light and correct for the color that you know something is. Only by suddenly changing the color of the light source do you puck up on how wild your perception can be.

>>80064546
>t. smurf

File: sicariodirt3.jpg (2MB, 1920x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1600px

>>80070057
pic related

>>80067825
As much as I love Mad Max, the early pics before the filter, looked more in line with Road Warrior, final version had a bit too much orange going on.

>>80070062

This is such a stupid argument.

Why not shoot daylight scenes with a jacked color temp and claim that its realistic too

>>80070181
Is that overexposed shit supposed to look good? Are you one of those S-curve-absolutely-everything fags?

>>80064924
>Oh boy, a "color graders don't understand color grading" movie

>>80070057
Yes, if a painter makes a crazy painting with a blue pineapple and an orange banana you can get mad about it and say "This painter is crazy, he doesn't accurately portray the true colors of the fruit, this his work is garbage for not reflecting reality the way I want to see it reflected." But you just sound like the crazy person with severe autism that wants to control other peoples art.

>>80070243
>overexposed
>top is literally highlight recover to the max

>>80070311
>bottom is 25% clipping

>>80065318
>They do have that luxury because they can pretty much give it any response curve they want in post.

No they can only guess what the right corrections are to bring everything back to color accuracy, and every person will do it differently

Not that this matters, because even if they could make the colors accurate, it would just be a starting point and they would wash it in blue and piss just the same

>>80070260
stylized color grading is a very welcome aspect of film making. however, your example is wrong, because unlike a painting, a movie requires hours of uninterrupted attention to experience.

>>80070243
you just proved how fucking retarded you contrarian shitposters are. Top is taken from the original blu ray, bottom is the the regraded version of the same scene from the 4K blu ray.

File: clipping.jpg (58KB, 1276x546px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1276x546px

>>80070345

Its not

>>80068306
not that guy, but I'm what you call an "old designer", where they actually hand-crafted and decorated websites (not like the hipster bullshit you see now with pastel colors)
a modern "designer" uses extreme minimalism to convey their justification to get $2000 per project

I'm feeling that "colorists" back then have the same idea vs "colorists" now

File: braap.jpg (492KB, 1920x1940px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 1920x1940px

dude lmao

>>80070778
>braap.jpg
Where's the butt?

>>80070260
Movies are almost always art for consumption. That means the point is to please an audience.

And your example sucks. Art could be entirely made for expression and viewed free of charge, and a poor choice of color could ruin it.

Also bitching isn't "controlling" art. It's bitching. I wish bitching stopped bad color grading.

>>80068066
Try Myspleen, they have a section for 35mm transfers.

File: braaaaaaap.jpg (989KB, 1920x1940px) Image search: [Google]

989KB, 1920x1940px

>>80070834

>>80071002
I didn't know Ben Affleck's mom was in this movie

>>80069926
I agree in this one situation, but personally I haven't seen what the rest of the movie is like.
If the rest of the movie (especially scenes outside of this environment) are the same, then no fuck the person in charge

>>80070209
pre-CGI pre-filter fury road looks EXTREMELY close to road warrior, I'd kill to have that version instead of black&white one.

>>80069926
>THIS IS A FUCKING OFFICE. IT IS SUPPOSED TO LOOK GREEN AND UNATTRACTIVE.

I've never been in a green office

>Your eyes correct to them in real life but the movie is choosing to depict them as they are.

Even if this were true, why would you depict something we don't see because its there? Human's don't see very well in the dark. So if we were depicting a pitch black room would we make it easy for the audience to see because small amounts of light are actually there?

File: The.Wailing.2016.1080p.BluRay.x264.VPPV.mkv_snapshot_00.27.39_[2017.03.04_20.42.25].png (3MB, 1920x804px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x804px

Meanwhile, in South Korea

File: wa.jpg (2MB, 1920x1608px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1608px

korean kino

>>80071837
What is the appeal of piss filters? I genuinely don't understand.

>>80071192

Just lower the saturation manually in vlc when you play the avi video file.

>>80072351

video games did them

and hollywood in a poor attempt at attracting video game players tries to emulate the look of games now

>>80064024
ITT: Capeshit Studios-fan-fuck-party

this thread should be pinned and stickied on /tv/

im serious

File: 1472845920353.png (78KB, 343x226px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 343x226px

Does anybody actually like blue filters over every shot?

File: vlcsnap-2017-03-04-18h31m51s7.jpg (1MB, 1915x812px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1915x812px

Reminder that Attack of The Clones was the first all digital hollywood (well technically, it was an indie film) picture.

It was filmed with a fucking 8-bit digital camera and it the grade STILL looks better than so many modern digital movies it's insane.

>>80073219
>and it the grade
*and the grade

>>80072384
thanks, I might try it. However, look at this shot, for example:

>>80067894
I really like the number of extras they used, before the copy-paste, gives it a much more local and intimate feel, closer to Road Warrior. I'd really love a more low-key version, in general.

>>80073219
holy shit

>>80068080
S O U T H P A C I F I C B A L ' I H A I

I feel like that with the emergence of digital editing a "color grading tech" job appeared that at first just needed to go through the shots to equalize the grading in a scene but later on they did more and more to warrant a larger paycheck so now they dick around with the grading and go to extremes for no reason whatsoever.

It's basically the same as when you look at certain music videos and footage from the late 90s and suddenly everything is in high contrast and washed out colors just because they thought it looks cool.

File: vlcsnap-2017-03-04-18h31m03s148.jpg (1MB, 1919x813px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1919x813px

>>80074989
It's funny because Lucas' digital films look much better contrast-wise than, say, an MCU movie.

>>80070181
>that sky

fucking hell MY EYES

>>80075068
Lucas may be shit at dialogue and direction in general but most of the scenes at least looked like they should feel. Too many large production movies just gave up on that with a similar amount of CG.

>>80073219
nigga you must have found the only acceptable looking shot in Attack of the Clones because the last time I watched it I was shocked at how bad it looked. Not just the CGI, but the whole thing just looks flat and soap opera-y. Maybe that's Lucas' directing, but still.

File: corrected AOTC.jpg (922KB, 1918x810px) Image search: [Google]

922KB, 1918x810px

>>80075231
>>80075291
Whoops, forgot to crop and bring down the red tint from VLC.

>>80075231
my copy
>>80075450
Is not the Blu-Ray.

The Blu-Ray has DNR and green tint all over it.

>>80064024
nigga looks like PK Subban

>>80076480
wow great post

File: identitytheft.png (45KB, 724x276px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 724x276px

>>80075510
anon why are you pretending to be me

>>80077291
I'm not, i'm replying to you..

File: photo.jpg (36KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 900x900px

>>80073909
>>80074869

>>80065956
Retard. Theres in universe reasons for the green tint.
Fucking kill yourself.

>>80071192
this/thread

>>80078191

that is the original release retard

>>80070931
myspleem deleted these because they were illegal

>>80078456
lol
At least I have the Jurassic Park and Matrix ones.

>>80078404
0/10 kill yourself
https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=matrix+lobby+scene&rlz=1C1SAVM_enNZ544NZ545&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix79Wj177SAhUE2GMKHYLODEUQ_AUICCgB&biw=1440&bih=770#imgrc=4kRM-pCfRiZ5BM:

>>80072393
Why the fuck do video games do them? Fallout NV had a piss filter and fallout 3 had the godawful, even more illogical, green filter. My assumption is it has something to do with covering up poor textures/shading/lighting by muddling any contrasting colors or geometry

It's an artistic decision. Your final product doesn't necessarily need to match reality or even attempt to. Also, cameras aren't incapable of depicting reality as is. The fact that you prefer the bottom image means nothing

what's your opinion on this guy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHfLX_TMduY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmy's_Despecialized_Edition
this basically changes contrast and shit

File: 9345.png (45KB, 778x512px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 778x512px

How do you learn stuff like color grading? It seems to me like color is a pretty subjective thing. How do I learn what color grading looks good and right? Like how do I know when the skin tones are wrong or the colors are clashing or whatever?

>>80078532
NV had a reason to have a "piss" filter. It was to enhance the dry desert atmosphere.

Fallout 3 did have a stupid filter though.

NV, Obsidian
F3 Bethshit
Simple explanation

>I'm the OP, every movie should be color graded like a Michael Bay film HURRR HURRR DUUUURRRRR

>>80078647
>It's an artistic decision
hopefully correct
>reality as is
this statement alone means you have no idea what you are talking about though.

File: vlcsnap-2017-02-16-07h40m55s219.png (2MB, 1920x816px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x816px

>>80078775
Everyone on that site (OT.com) has crippling autism.

There's this guy named "TV's Frink" who has posted there 24/7 every day for the past 8 years.

orange and teal is fucking retarded and anyone who likes that should be shot.

piss filter/green filter is also bad

i've heard an enormous amount of blurays are "color corrected" . yikes. dont buy it.

ALIENS is hard to find in its original color. you either get shafted with blue/orange or find a purple , black is ok but loses the details.

>>80064722
>>80064024
this is retarded, you made it look like a happy exciting adventure sci fi flick

top is more sombre and composed

>>80078950
Aliens looks nothing like it used to look, but I like the teal Blu-Ray look for it.

>>80078917
>this statement alone means you have no idea what you are talking about though.
Camera-reality is not the same as reality.
No combination of lenses, frame rate and values can match the actual visual experience of the world
You'd know this if you had any idea what you are talking about though

How many of you photoshop autists can actually agree on one type of filter? Because so far none of you have and I doubt you have jobs as major film editors.

>>80079004
my point was you believe there is a visual reality "as it is". There is in fact no such thing. Cameras can capture anything the photographer wants to in their imagination, but that doesn't mean it is a universal "reality".

We are arguing the same point, you just got triggered and can't read.

File: sicario.jpg (696KB, 1920x795px) Image search: [Google]

696KB, 1920x795px

LOOK ON MY WORKS YE MIGHTY

AND DESPAIR

I guess I'm the only one that prefers the top version, it kinda fits with everything else. I can't explain, it sort of sets an atmosphere for the entire movie and plays along with the pacing and score. It's part of the grand picture.

>>80079055
I'm >>80078647 and I'm a cinematographer/photographer
There's just no agreement when it comes to color correcting, but we do have estabilished practiced. Most people move away from flat, desaturated images like those straight out of a RED camera.

>>80079150
That's exactly my point, you autist. "Realism" is subjective and not a reliable measure for quality cinematography.

>>80077291
>identitytheft.png
oh my god

File: sicario.jpg (837KB, 1920x795px) Image search: [Google]

837KB, 1920x795px

>>80079200
ROUND 2

>>80079210
Here's something a tad bit tweaked towards what you seem to be looking for, while still keeping some atmosphere.

>>80079210
I know this is challenging on an anonymous message board, but next time re-read your post if you are going to be so anal about it.

>>80079200
looks like Counter Strike

>>80078867
"What's your career?"
>I'm an electrical engineer and I help my community
"Cool! And what is your career?"
>I decide if the skin tone is just autistically perfect enough in movies with my skin tone and color filters degree

File: 9-cFallen-Angels[1].jpg (31KB, 600x255px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x255px

wtf I hate color correction now

File: sicario (1).jpg (278KB, 1920x795px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1920x795px

>>80079200
>>80079340
>>80079210
Here's a third, based on OP's bottom picture this time.

Terrible thread

This thread only further proves /tv/ knows absolutely nothing of filmmaking. This isn't a fucking videogame.

>>80064053
first post, best post, should have been /thread

>>80079497

This isnt color corrected at all

>>80079200
>>80079340
>>80079552
>>80079604
>>80079606
If I make a "recolor X image to X look/style as best you can" thread, would people do it?

>>80067934
I went to film school while you watched Netflix

File: MatrixNeoMorpheus_CUs.jpg (2MB, 1200x1387px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1200x1387px

>>80078514

It was added to the home releases

This is a 35mm still from the original theatrical run.

Additionally the original trailer has no sign of green tint

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPBuOAxOb2E

>>80078867
Anyone?

>>80079670
So he's Tartantino?

>>80079649
the usage of gels is color correcting too, sperg

>>80079664
I'd do it :)

>>80079714
not sure if serious

>>80070181
you motherfucking stupid nigga ever thought they wanted monotone look specifically?

what a fucking garbage.dumbster of a fread

>>80079725
I'm serious senpai

>>80064024
Color grading and fucking with the shutter speed are the two worst developments in cinema over the last 15-20 years. I miss the 90's when cinematography was rich and colorful while smooth camera work and editing was used.

>>80064024
And here's the worst thing, people bitch about digital but it captures color more like the human eye. I've seen STUNNING video shot on HD on YouTube that blows away the stupid shit Hollywood's been doing with color grading.

>>80079693

That image is a case of daylight film under florescent, not filters

>>80079693
No, dipshit, that shot is in an underground street tunnel and those lights give off a green tinge when shot with film unless you gel them which they didn't and why it looks like that, fucktard.

>>80079871
film doesnt need to be realistic picture of reality retard.

>>80079871
>And here's the worst thing, people bitch about digital but it captures color more like the human eye.
>bayer pattern sensor
>linear response curve
>more like the human eye

lel

>>80079919
>>80079947
that green tinge is present throughout the whole film. it's filtering
in that particular scene it's the tunnel lights + filtering

>>80075068
That's because there's actual COLOR. The best MCU movies have strong colors i.e. Thor, Captain America and Ant-Man.

>>80065956
Where can i get acopy of this rip?

>>80079958
It also doesn't need to be fuck ugly like your whore mother.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (26KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 1024x576px

>>80064024
>why do color graders on digital movies suck at their jobs so hard?
Real Humans is the worst at this. I feel most scenes are like they are filming sun light.

>>80080044
Myspleen.
It's a private tracker.

So is color grading a subjective thing or not? People here act like it's objective yet I haven't seen anyone post any color grading guidelines here.

>>80079978
>that green tinge is present throughout the whole film.

no its not

and doyle used daylight and tungsten stock under florescents which is why its green when florescent light is present

>>80065830
>>>/sci/

>>80080192
>People here act like it's objective yet I haven't seen anyone post any color grading guidelines here.

heres a general rule; dont do shit because its trendy

ie piss, blue and teal, dude no highlights or blacks lmao

>>80080209
>no its not
kek I literally just finished watching that movie. it's present in almost every single scene

File: Fallen-Angels-086.jpg (439KB, 1920x1064px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 1920x1064px

>>80080259
>it's present in almost every single scene

But you just said its present throughout

Anyway its due to using the wrong type of stock under florescent light. Intentional but not a filter.

>>80080192
There's no rule other than the artistic vision of a director, you are being meme'd by gigaplebs and gigaretards who think they're hot shit when they can orange n teal

>>80080387
>intentionally manipulating your colors is not color correction
yeah you're wrong

>>80080455

Ok so you dont know what you are talking about

File: k.jpg (146KB, 1064x798px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1064x798px

kino version

>>80067906
HAHAHA AV1 would like to have a word with you.

>>80080696
The end result is the same. Even moving the white point can achieve "color grading" so a black&w. film can be color graded too.>>80067906
>HAHAHA AV1 would like to have a word with you.
Downloading x264>x265 transcodes is the most retarded meme out there, kys kys eternal kysser

>>80064217
I know too many people who don't understand why the top image here is bad. Art 101 is lost on people.

>>80080752
The bottom one is the bad one tho.
The high contrast look doesn't suit the scene.

>>80068878
He's not right but you're not wrong either. The bottom image DOES look more natural but yeah deep blacks is a meme I wish would fucking die.

The game Skyrim is one of the worst offenders in recent memory, with half the fucking screen being black as fuck. Pisses me off.

>>80080749
>The end result is the same. Even moving the white point can achieve "color grading" so a black&w. film can be color graded too.

The difference is in-camera chosen at time of shooting vs after the fact out-of-camera

If you think there is no difference then you are clueless

File: tbtwtut.jpg (455KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 1920x1080px

wow leaone colored his films ugly not reality this is BAD BAD BAD too yellow not real wow

Leone suck dick now wtf hack!

>>80080752
the crushed blacks on bottom picture are way more problematic desu

>>80080752
The bottom one is shit because the film intentionally looked for washed out monotone look and this is consistent through out the film.

You are clearly ignoring the film and projecting yourself as the director because taht's all you can do.

>>80080838

as already explained in this thread

>>80069262

>>80080838
That looks beautiful.

>>80079664
Rev up that thread. I'll be a critic.

>>80080877
Nothing gets explained in that except your arbitrary mental gymnastics. Film gets a distinct color, brightness and contrast as the result and doesn't depict your "reality".

>>80080898
Gimme a sec to find a suitable image.

>>80079743
they should have made it a nice looking shot first, it's hot garbage

File: 6d783639c5c73ecea1c5eac3033d4b03.jpg (140KB, 1920x800px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1920x800px

wow wtf lens distortion this is not how i see IRL wtf coens are hacks now

File: 576full-monica-vitti.jpg (61KB, 576x800px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 576x800px

>>80080923
>the original release didnt have a yellow tint
>OMG nothing explained ur crazy

Deakins is a hack

>inb4 ugh he's older than you and got oscars check mate ;)

>>80080984

how triggered are you

>>80081009
>and got oscars check mate ;)

Actually I have as many Oscars as Deakins.

>>80081009
>Deakins is a hack
Proof?

yeah bro let's make our pictures the most lifelike possible: retarded framerate, diegetic lighting ("wtf I can't see their faces!" -average moviegoer), desaturated dogshit colors. what about dropping continuity editing too? I mean real life is unedited!

File: peterson pepe.png (270KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 600x800px

>>80081105
>>80081105
>>80081105
>>80081105
>>80081105

GET IN HERE

>>80064722
bottom one is prob how Harris Savides would have shot it