Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

PIRATES 4 - Film Look

mr.gopal if the in-camera settings are correct then all you need is good cinematographer and a good d.i, thats all....
waiting for the first look of 180 starring Sidhdharta...
 
I shot a short on a DVX100 ten years ago. People in the theatre thought it was shot on 35mm. Most people have no idea what the film look is really about.
I agree with Jannard that it's just light it, shoot it, grade it. The combination of skills in these three areas creates a cinematic look. It's the result of composition, film photography skills, how to lit a place and the people within it and how you handle the material you get.

With the right people and skills you can make the most shitty camera look cinematic and with a camera like Epic, it's even easier.
 
gbalaji said:
My simple humble question again here, how come Pirates 4 with the same mysterium-x sensor can achieve film look possibly in post process
Click to expand...

Mostly by hiring a colorist with developed sensibility and technical knowledge to manipulate the digitally acquired image to achieve same characteristics as an image acquired on a biological element.

Verbalizing the technical part of crafting process is a) difficult b) almost useless.

As the process is not an exact science, although often perceived as one, this type of question in general could be compared to asking a painter how he painted a picture.
 
gbalaji said:
Any Idea how they achieve film look in PIRATES 4?
Click to expand...

I'am not sure if there is such a thing as filmlook. There is good Cinematography and Art Direction which further leads to enhancement by color grading. As a rule color grading falls under cinematography for a reason. A great colorist cant really help you if you don't consult them before you shoot. There are many types of surfaces and textures that can ruin a look. The rich saturation level on a 4k camera lends itself to targeted corrections and desaturation. There is so much color information in one frame its unbelievable.

Anyway to answer your question: If you want to get that specific look of Pirates 4, which is not very common in a lot of feature films, call Company 3, ask for Stefan Sonnenfeld, (310) 255-6600. That should answer all your questions.
 
Stefan Sonnenfeld definitely has an impressive imdb page. Worked on a lot of big projects. I guess if you manage to get through to him and he talks to you about what he does then it will be pretty informative.
 
Hrvoje Simic said:
Care to expand on this statement ?
Click to expand...

Very simple. An experienced colorist has usually dealt with footage from more cameras and codecs than you probably have. For the same reasons you would send your script or emotional treatment to an Art director, cinematographer, composer, soundesigner, vfx director, etc, you should do the same with a Colorist. Most likely the format you are shooting or the story itself does not lend itself to your original color idea. Creative colorists are very interested in pushing the emotional boundaries of a project using color. You will also spend your money wisely in creative grading than in shot to shot color correction.
Most facilities love well lit, well focused, well framed, well art designed raw footage. Most people don't have the budget to shoot well, so a facility will charge you to fix a whole lot of stuff, but since you don't have the budget you will end up getting a decent correction and a slap on grade.
With early consultation you can get a whole lot out of a grading session. Creative color correction is value added perception. Take it seriously. Its not about cool or wow's, its always about emotion. If your movie is not shot in sweeping epic scale like Pirates 4, Slapping on that specific look won't make it look like that Pirates 4.
I personally come from the Jim Jarmush, Mark Romanek, Coen Brothers school of minimalism. The less money you have, the less you put in a frame. Spend more time on better performances and less on crazy jolting angles.
 
The formulation of the statement I quoted made it very easy to be interpreted like it's generally stating that any help from a great colorist is preconditioned with consulting prior to a shoot, which is not true.

1) A bunch of stuff in our archive came from a bunch of cameras and codecs and many times no one asked colorist's suggestions prior to shooting.
It always left looking much better. Without a slap on grade.
2) Properly shot .r3d material coming here will leave this place looking like any stock you want. Even without prior consultations with the DP.

I'd say that a colorist's job is to make the most out of the material which came in, regardless of prior consultations and preparation which although recommended, are not essential to get an excellent looking image. Provided that the DP is doing his job and not deciding on a completely different route after the material has been shot. If a colorist depends on influencing the shoot and DP's work he's not doing his job properly IMO.

A distinction should be made on who is deciding on the final look and what is a priority in a project.

I'd say that a good colorist should be able to perceive the material's context, the "feel", to be able to create a look based on that, to accentuate and/or modify it, and not be dependent on own vision forcefully trying to make the original material and it's "feel" meet it. The creative part of his DP-extension craft should be insipred on the story and photography itself IMO, as a music artist won't compose a score completely unrelated to the story and how it's cut.
 
IMO, "Film-Look" is a transitional aesthetic that was best employed softening over-sharpened CCD originated material through selective degredation. This was usually a gamma correction with a simulated temporal change. What you see in the Red footage is a significant increase in perceived resolution from a film print. This difference can be accentuated when Red material is lit poorly. The "Film-Look" will wane now that half the cinema screens in North America have been converted. In two more years, when all the screens have digital projection, "Film-Look" will be as anachronistic as a B&W 4:3 frame. Still there as a creative choice, but no longer representative of the mainstream, and not encouraged from a technical perspective.
 
Hrvoje Simic said:
The formulation of the statement I quoted made it very easy to be interpreted like it's generally stating that any help from a great colorist is preconditioned with consulting prior to a shoot, which is not true.

1) A bunch of stuff in our archive came from a bunch of cameras and codecs and many times no one asked colorist's suggestions prior to shooting.
It always left looking much better. Without a slap on grade.
2) Properly shot .r3d material coming here will leave this place looking like any stock you want. Even without prior consultations with the DP.

I'd say that a colorist's job is to make the most out of the material which came in, regardless of prior consultations and preparation which although recommended, are not essential to get an excellent looking image. Provided that the DP is doing his job and not deciding on a completely different route after the material has been shot. If a colorist depends on influencing the shoot and DP's work he's not doing his job properly IMO.

A distinction should be made on who is deciding on the final look and what is a priority in a project.

I'd say that a good colorist should be able to perceive the material's context, the "feel", to be able to create a look based on that, to accentuate and/or modify it, and not be dependent on own vision forcefully trying to make the original material and it's "feel" meet it. The creative part of his DP-extension craft should be insipred on the story and photography itself IMO, as a music artist won't compose a score completely unrelated to the story and how it's cut.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should carefully re-read my post, because you are stating my point clearer for me.
 
In my mind the difference between film and video has always been motion, there is just something about the motion of video even at 24 fps that makes it look digital, and it's most visible in low light and indoors.
Film seems to be more friendly to bad lighting but even good lighting in video can still look like video so I don't think thats the only thing the separates the two.
 
Craig W. Bickerstaff said:
In my mind the difference between film and video has always been motion, there is just something about the motion of video even at 24 fps that makes it look digital, and it's most visible in low light and indoors.
Film seems to be more friendly to bad lighting but even good lighting in video can still look like video so I don't think thats the only thing the separates the two.
Click to expand...

This is something I've noticed myself, most people think I'm crazy when I bring it up.

Of course lense choice, lighting, grading etc are the biggest thing to creating a cinematic experience, but the motion does feel different to me, even at 24 it feels different.
 
Peter Jackson intercut film and RED on The Lovely Bones. No one could tell which was which. Same on Green Hornet. The just released Source Code was shot both film and RED. When comparing apples to oranges (different films, DPs, grading, etc.) it is easy to point out differences. But when both are used in the same film and the intent is to match... that is the true test. IMHO.

BTW... I never heard anyone say that The Social Network looked like video.

Jim
 
Guys, Pirates is graded by Stefan Sonnenfeld. He's a very reputed graded from the West Coast and is highly sought after.
Having him grade all the other Pirates must have just made it that much more easier for them to pull off the same grade on this project as well.

No doubt, having brilliantly exposed material just makes Stefan's job that much more easier, but it sure is the DP's talent and Stefan just adding to it.

We just delivered a regional film out of the post facility that I currently represent and we brought in quite a few DPs and Directors to view it (on film print with a 45 foot screen) and none of them could tell it was shot on RED, except when the Shot on RED logo popped up in the end credits.
We didnt do anything to add to the process of making it look more "filmic". It was just the talent of the DP meshing nets, using soft lighting techniques that just made our colorist's job that much more simpler :)
 
Just saw the trailer last night, and it looked awesome. Saw it watching Source Code, and could not tell what was RED and what was not.
I think the question of whether RED1/Epic are good enough is completely answered in the positive, the only question is whether each individual person/project *wants* to use them, or (as in my case) could afford to step up to that level.
 
I thought The Social Network BD looked like video after Lowry Digital degrained it. It was immediately obvious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top