Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

How not to use a DRAGON

John Hope

John Hope

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Transformers 1 + 2: keystones of look

Transformers 4, DRAGON: they just forgot the color correction, skin is horrible, despite the dynamic range, i could see in almost every shot, DV like overexposures.
Totally disappointed by the new Michael Bay's DOP
 
I think there was a lot of rushed exposures in T4, lots of under underexposed shots pulled up in the grade. Spotted a lot of noise in some shots, but with other camera angles of the same scene, they were perfect .? go figure.

I wouldn't blame the DP one little bit, Bay films have so many cameras blazing away, I bet who ever has been asked to operate those cameras is probably fumbling exposure. ? Not to mention there are 2nd, 3rd, 4th units with multiple cameras shooting ton's of images.

I personally think if any DP shooting a Micheal Bay film, has balls of steel ! So so so much to deal with.

For any bad skin colours, or crazy colour corrections, I'd be leaving the DP way out of it. Micheal Bay has last say in colour and general look of the whole film.
The (multiple ) colourist on this job are more likely in survival mode as they movie comes down to the last few days before launch date.
 
Transformers 1 and 2 looks like shit. It's the height of the awful plastic teal/orange sickness.
 
From what I understand, Transformers 4 was shot mostly MX fyi...they only recieved Dragons towards the end I believe...
 
Overall the movie looked alright to me, but I should note they used several cameras, including Epic MXs, Dragons, Digital IMAX 3D (essentially two Phantom 65s) and 35mm film cameras. I can't even begin to imagine how hard it must be for colorist to maintain consistent look between all of this. I can't be sure, but if I guessed some shots right, I'm not terribly impressed with Phantom/IMAX, DR-wise looked almost 5DMkIII if not worse.
 
This is ugly, and in the theater it wasn't better.
This thing isn't up to the standard i was used to for 40 years.


transformers-4-age-of-extinction-still-tessa-peltz.jpg



transformers-4-age-of-extinction-movie-screenshot-mark-wahlberg-e1405506944307.jpg
 
Christoffer Glans said:
It's the height of the awful plastic teal/orange sickness.
Click to expand...

The "Teal/Orange sickness" is still out there. I hated it the first time I saw it and I still hate it. Works well if you're going after a diseased, deathly ill pallor though :)
 
Please show some respect.

The artists who made that film are part of this community.

If you don't like the aesthetic - fine. But please choose other words than "shit" "horrible" and "awful" to elucidate your opinions.
 
Mark Wilkinson said:
Please show some respect.

The artists who made that film are part of this community.

If you don't like the aesthetic - fine. But please choose other words than "shit" "horrible" and "awful" to elucidate your opinions.
Click to expand...

You are right.
Let's say that it's disappointing, and below average. The Epic (especially the Dragon) is a super monster and could be even better than film, but probably we are still in the beginning of a learning curve.
 
Yeah - fair enough.

I am discovering the rules of shooting with the Dragon daily - today's lesson: Respect the Black Shade Alerts. If it is yellow - you need a black shade...

FWIW the color in T4 shots above look like MX to me, as well. But Toia's point is very valid - the look of Bay's films is made in the grade.
 
Steve Freebairn said:
Funny that you posted a film shot and complained about a digital camera :)
Click to expand...
No, i complained about the COLOR GRADING of the WHOLE movie, not the camera. Those are just 2 frames found in the web as example!
 
Honestly this is one of saddest threads I've seen in a while guys.

It's one thing to offer constructive criticism (thank you Toia), and another thing entirely to flat out dis something that thousands of people in our industry invested countless man-hours and effort in to.

We should be above this as a working creative community on Reduser.
 
Burke Doeren said:
Honestly this is one of saddest threads I've seen in a while guys. It's one thing to offer constructive criticism (thank you Toia), and another thing entirely to flat out dis something that thousands of people in our industry invested countless man-hours and effort in to. We should be above this as a working creative community on Reduser.
Click to expand...
Really? instead i find it very constructive. We have to be aware that the digital media is not as forgiving as film. We have to be very cautious, we don't want to lower the cinematographic level of the film industry.
 
I don't think they have you in mind (or me) when they do color correction (and probably many other things).
What they do have in mind is what the average person who likes Tranformers likes the color to look like.
 
Lakis Amarantithis said:
I don't think they have you in mind (or me) when they do color correction (and probably many other things).
What they do have in mind is what the average person who likes Tranformers likes the color to look like.
Click to expand...
Hope not.
Hollywood in the past imposed it's style. And it was always driving and forward looking. Ugly skin tones are just an error.
 
John Hope said:
We have to be aware that the digital media is not as forgiving as film.
Click to expand...

The issue you are pointing out has nothing to do with digital. As Steve pointed out, the examples you provided from the web, with skin tones that you did not like, were shot on film. So they can make any medium look non-pleasing to you. Personally the grading of the film did not bother me. Its a look they wanted and I respect that.

I do think it would be interested to see the movie again with an on-screen label for which camera was used on every shot. I did not care for the movie, but then again I did not like the previous ones either. I do consider myself a Michael Bay fan. He has some great popcorn flicks.

I did think some scenes were a lot noisier than others. I was curious why that was. Was it underexposed and then pulled up in post, was it something else?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top