Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

  • 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 :)

"Knowing"...

Not to mention the hundreds of millions they spent to bribe the studios into adopting Blu-Ray.

I don't see how they make all this back in the long run, but maybe they just really did NOT want to lose another epic format war.

Most analysts have overestimated the cost of building a PS3 because they have used the prices another company would have had to pay for the parts. Sony make most of the parts needed to make the PS3, so it is just an accounting exersize to assign the loss to one division and the profit to another. Most of the components have a high initial cost but a low variable per-unit cost, and it is difficult to se who Sony could have sold all those blue lasers and special-purpose ICs to if they had not used them in-house.

That said, I guess I am one of those they will never make a profit from. My PS3 works as a Linux numbercruncher, and I will never buy a single game for it.
 
watched some 'Knowing' clips in Entertainment Tonight. Looked really good. but why some people say that Red footage will not look good in broadcast or SD? why does the footage from same camera system have very different image quality? that begs a question, have we truly unlocked the secret of 'superior image quality' of 'studio films' ?
 
RED footage does look good both in web and broadcast. But why, when WE shoot on RED, it looks good only on web and not broadcast?

(i am referring to 'Black in America' Footage in CNN VS 'Knowing' clips in ET)
 
The difference is in the coloring and grading. Which is the same reason that expensive music videos seem to 'look' better than some of the indie ones even if being shot on 35mm. Yes, art direction, makeup and cinematography are the backbone, but the job of the colorist is the polish and the finish.
 
The difference is in the coloring and grading. Which is the same reason that expensive music videos seem to 'look' better than some of the indie ones even if being shot on 35mm. Yes, art direction, makeup and cinematography are the backbone, but the job of the colorist is the polish and the finish.

There is 'some other things', other than color grading which contributing to the 'expensive look'.

if you would research about making of bollywood or chinese movies, they are pretty much same as hollywood. shoot in 35mm, grade in da Vinci then out put in 35mm again. but, if compared, the image quality is far more superior in hollywood movies.

even if we shoot 4k with the best optics and grade in best DI software, we will never come close to 'studio movie' look.
 
i don't know. might be a little node in shake that somehow transforms clips into 'glossy' look when outputting.

it got to be something to do with post workflow. some settings. some settings!
 
I've been there sky1walker... It's in the coloring. Glossy happens in the coloring. Lighting is what makes glossy possible, but the actual glossy work happens with the colorist.

You ever see deleted scenes from big movies on DVD extras? Even the big budget stuff - looks pretty 'normal'. After a great transfer from the 35mm neg, coloring and a great sound mix. Boom, Hollywood.
 
After a great transfer from the 35mm neg, coloring and a great sound mix. Boom, Hollywood.


or is it the method of transfer? when the 'studio films' release trailers to SD or HD Broadcast do they transfer in a high quality D5 tapes, where indie films don't have a resource to transfer in D5, hence the 'low quality' look?
 
I've been there sky1walker... It's in the coloring. Glossy happens in the coloring. Lighting is what makes glossy possible, but the actual glossy work happens with the colorist.

You ever see deleted scenes from big movies on DVD extras? Even the big budget stuff - looks pretty 'normal'. After a great transfer from the 35mm neg, coloring and a great sound mix. Boom, Hollywood.


I truly hope that the colorist him\herself matters more than the software these days...

Yes? :innocent:
 
You can have the best software/hardware money can buy, but if you don't have the eye for color, contrast, tone - then the tools don't matter.

The colorist is just as much of an artist as a DP or composer, etc...

I don't know where you're located sky1walker, but try to sit in on a high-end coloring session. It'll amaze you what the raw footage looks like vs. the finished product.
 
Tiny mention of RED and Knowing over at Dark Horizons:

http://www.darkhorizons.com/interviews/proyask.php


Question: How gratifying was it not only to see the director's cut of Dark City, but to see it in that format?

Proyas: Oh, well, it's amazing. I mean, we shot "Knowing" on these cameras, or these red cameras, these 4K digital cameras - the first time I actually shot digital. And it was great. I mean, they really are - the look of the film is fabulous. I was very excited by that. But, you know, it's terrific that we can - in our own homes now, we can play something that - off Blu-Ray, or whatever - that really closely approximates what the film actually - the quality of the film that was made.

Question: Was it a budgetary decision?

Proyas: It wasn't, no. I mean, I kind of - we pretended that it was. But in fact, it probably actually cost us a little more when it was all said and done, because the shooting is obviously - you don't have film stock to pay for, but the editorial pipeline and the effects pipeline is so much more complicated. Because we're still working it all out. That the level of complexity built in, and the extra people that we've needed to make it all work, probably in the long run was a wash, you know? But it's the way. I mean, we have to solve these problems, because it is the way it's all going. So it's just the way we do it. So we decided to bite the bullet and go for it.

-Noah
 
Back
Top