David Mullen ASC
Moderator
I mean, talking about the difference in look between 5218 and low-con 5229 (which could be minimized to some degree in a D.I. session), look at how many types of diffusion filters are on the market -- ProMist, Black ProMist, GlimmerGlass, Soft-FX, Classic Soft, Black Diffusion-FX, Black Dot Texture Screen, Classic Black, Double Classic Black, etc. Or all the types of diffusion gels -- 216, 250, Opal, Light Grid, Full Grid, Muslin, etc.
All of these elements contribute to texture, to "palette", just as the decision to use haze on the set or not. And the use of these elements may be quite subtle (and sometimes should be more subtle than the average viewer can detect). If the differences between 5218 and 5229 were really extreme, some viewer may be asking "what was up with that picture?" when they walk out of the theater, so it's not necessarily a weakness that the difference between these choices is very subtle.
I admit when you're on a budget, you have to prioritize which textural effect is worth a budgetary expense, we don't make movies in a vacuum generally. And we all don't have the same image priorities; some DP may rhapsodize about Cooke lenses like they are the Second Coming while another won't lose any sleep if he has to use Zeiss lenses instead. But most artists have image issues that they are personally passionate about, beyond the average viewer's ability to care -- that's why they are the artist and not the viewer.
Now if movies were only a mass-produced commercial product devoid of any artistic value, then one could more accept an attitude that anything not obviously appreciated and noticed by the consumer that costs extra is a waste of money. And perhaps some people feel that way about the movies they make, although there are probably easier ways to make a buck.
I don't mean to beat-up on Kalone here because this is way beyond anything he was suggesting, of course, but I really hate the arguments that suggest that it is silly when artists care "too much" about something (like palette) if the average viewer doesn't. If we didn't care about such things, we wouldn't be doing something as hard as moviemaking. We'd just be a moviegoer.
Besides, forget film for a moment -- even in a world of digital camera only, moviemakers are going to be arguing over the palette, the image texture, that one digital camera seems to create over another. Not to mention differences in lenses. So even if film disappears, this argument isn't going to disappear.
(I see on another thread, a discussion over 12:1 vs. 10:1 wavelet compression for the RED -- another textural image issue that probably most viewers are not going to care about or notice on average? The point is that we are all natural pickers of nit, so to speak. It's our job to be picky.)
All of these elements contribute to texture, to "palette", just as the decision to use haze on the set or not. And the use of these elements may be quite subtle (and sometimes should be more subtle than the average viewer can detect). If the differences between 5218 and 5229 were really extreme, some viewer may be asking "what was up with that picture?" when they walk out of the theater, so it's not necessarily a weakness that the difference between these choices is very subtle.
I admit when you're on a budget, you have to prioritize which textural effect is worth a budgetary expense, we don't make movies in a vacuum generally. And we all don't have the same image priorities; some DP may rhapsodize about Cooke lenses like they are the Second Coming while another won't lose any sleep if he has to use Zeiss lenses instead. But most artists have image issues that they are personally passionate about, beyond the average viewer's ability to care -- that's why they are the artist and not the viewer.
Now if movies were only a mass-produced commercial product devoid of any artistic value, then one could more accept an attitude that anything not obviously appreciated and noticed by the consumer that costs extra is a waste of money. And perhaps some people feel that way about the movies they make, although there are probably easier ways to make a buck.
I don't mean to beat-up on Kalone here because this is way beyond anything he was suggesting, of course, but I really hate the arguments that suggest that it is silly when artists care "too much" about something (like palette) if the average viewer doesn't. If we didn't care about such things, we wouldn't be doing something as hard as moviemaking. We'd just be a moviegoer.
Besides, forget film for a moment -- even in a world of digital camera only, moviemakers are going to be arguing over the palette, the image texture, that one digital camera seems to create over another. Not to mention differences in lenses. So even if film disappears, this argument isn't going to disappear.
(I see on another thread, a discussion over 12:1 vs. 10:1 wavelet compression for the RED -- another textural image issue that probably most viewers are not going to care about or notice on average? The point is that we are all natural pickers of nit, so to speak. It's our job to be picky.)
