New Video: How to get JOKER look

[Waqas Qazi]

https://youtu.be/fFINbdzWQNg
In this video, I will show you how to recreate a look from the movie JOKER.
Hit the thumbs up, leave a comment, and share it with your friends. ⁣
Enjoy!

 

[Jagg Pette]

Thanks! Great resolve tutorials.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Most of the look of the film was done on the set by DP Lawrence Sher, as well as the color-correction by Jill Bogdanowicz at CO3/Santa Monica. What I see in the video doesn't look a thing like what was done on Joker. Jill has talked about her look and the use of a custom 5293 emulation LUT developed by her father, former Kodak color scientist Mitch Bogdanowicz:

Wild Card: Lawrence Sher on Joker
http://www.icgmagazine.com/web/wild-card/

Sher met with Company 3 colorist Jill Bogdanowicz to consult on a show LUT. “Jill’s father, Mitch, had worked in Rochester at Kodak for decades,” Sher reveals, “and he came on to help create a look based on Kodak’s [EXR 200T] 5293. Taking this emulation to the nth degree meant mapping 5293 into the Arri 65 log profile. We used it throughout, putting it into the DI station so dailies just transferred straight across.”

On Godzilla, Sher had tried to keep the film in a P3 colorspace through most of the pipeline – for Joker, he took it a step further. “The monitors and dailies were all P3,” he says. “There was a Rec.709 version that Editorial could cut to, but everything I saw was P3, which for me was very important because there’s a translation going on when you view in a different colorspace. It’s human nature to get used to how something looks during editing, and then get a shock when you go into final coloring. By having P3 there all along, you can avoid this. I recognize the various issues with this approach, but I feel everybody needs to agree on a single colorspace.”

Phillips appreciated this, noting; “Larry always works his butt off getting the dailies to look the way we want them. And while Jill at Company 3 is certainly an additive factor in our process, we’re not relighting the look in DI. It’s more about subtlety, in terms of matching highlights and making sure everything integrates.” Bogdanowicz used Blackmagic Design’s DaVinci Resolve to fine-tune the 5293 emulation.

Sher, who says he’s “immensely happy” with the final grade, notes how the team was able to carry the Kodak 5293 feel straight through, embellished by the addition of 5293 LiveGrain. “Even when doing VFX reviews, I’d think, ‘That looks great without further tweaking,’ since they used that same LUT.” And while he’s yet to tackle the HDR version at press time, Sher feels strongly that the final product should look essentially the same.

“Whether the movie is viewed in 4K, HDR or low-fi, it should not in one version appear enhanced, but as just another deliverable,” he concludes. “The hardest thing for any filmmaker is probably, after seeing his or her movie in the theater, catching it streaming or on Blu-ray and wondering why it suddenly seems so garish. What happened to the colorspace?” (Note: John Quartel led Company 3’s Color Science department in designing “sister LUT’s” for different versions, including HDR for projection and Rec.709 for home video.)

Jill is a very experienced and extremely technical colorist who knows this stuff backwards and forwards. Resolve 15.3 was used on this particular project, but she has a unique way of running it that's a bit different than a lot of other people. It's also fair to say that lighting and lenses and the Alexa 65 and exposure and art direction were all a huge, huge part of it.

 

[Waqas Qazi]

Thanks! Great resolve tutorials.

Thank you.

 

[Waqas Qazi]

Most of the look of the film was done on the set by DP Lawrence Sher, as well as the color-correction by Jill Bogdanowicz at CO3/Santa Monica. What I see in the video doesn't look a thing like what was done on Joker. Jill has talked about her look and the use of a custom 5293 emulation LUT developed by her father, former Kodak color scientist Mitch Bogdanowicz:

Wild Card: Lawrence Sher on Joker
http://www.icgmagazine.com/web/wild-card/

Sher met with Company 3 colorist Jill Bogdanowicz to consult on a show LUT. “Jill’s father, Mitch, had worked in Rochester at Kodak for decades,” Sher reveals, “and he came on to help create a look based on Kodak’s [EXR 200T] 5293. Taking this emulation to the nth degree meant mapping 5293 into the Arri 65 log profile. We used it throughout, putting it into the DI station so dailies just transferred straight across.”

On Godzilla, Sher had tried to keep the film in a P3 colorspace through most of the pipeline – for Joker, he took it a step further. “The monitors and dailies were all P3,” he says. “There was a Rec.709 version that Editorial could cut to, but everything I saw was P3, which for me was very important because there’s a translation going on when you view in a different colorspace. It’s human nature to get used to how something looks during editing, and then get a shock when you go into final coloring. By having P3 there all along, you can avoid this. I recognize the various issues with this approach, but I feel everybody needs to agree on a single colorspace.”

Phillips appreciated this, noting; “Larry always works his butt off getting the dailies to look the way we want them. And while Jill at Company 3 is certainly an additive factor in our process, we’re not relighting the look in DI. It’s more about subtlety, in terms of matching highlights and making sure everything integrates.” Bogdanowicz used Blackmagic Design’s DaVinci Resolve to fine-tune the 5293 emulation.

Sher, who says he’s “immensely happy” with the final grade, notes how the team was able to carry the Kodak 5293 feel straight through, embellished by the addition of 5293 LiveGrain. “Even when doing VFX reviews, I’d think, ‘That looks great without further tweaking,’ since they used that same LUT.” And while he’s yet to tackle the HDR version at press time, Sher feels strongly that the final product should look essentially the same.

“Whether the movie is viewed in 4K, HDR or low-fi, it should not in one version appear enhanced, but as just another deliverable,” he concludes. “The hardest thing for any filmmaker is probably, after seeing his or her movie in the theater, catching it streaming or on Blu-ray and wondering why it suddenly seems so garish. What happened to the colorspace?” (Note: John Quartel led Company 3’s Color Science department in designing “sister LUT’s” for different versions, including HDR for projection and Rec.709 for home video.)

Jill is a very experienced and extremely technical colorist who knows this stuff backwards and forwards. Resolve 15.3 was used on this particular project, but she has a unique way of running it that's a bit different than a lot of other people. It's also fair to say that lighting and lenses and the Alexa 65 and exposure and art direction were all a huge, huge part of it.

I assure you two things, 1. you didn't watch my video or else you'd know that I say everything you just wrote here. Most of the look came from the set. 2. For how far off my shot was that I worked on, I nailed the look of the reference image.

Also, you get me the dailies and I will nail this look 100% without a doubt.

Colorists are humans but somehow people such as yourself make them sound like immortal or some alien from another planet.

I respect Jill and have spoken to her before. She's a super down to earth person and I agree with you that I am sure she's beyond talented that doesn't negate my talent or what I am capable of.

I am tired of this community how everyone comes out to pull each other's legs and make them feel small. I am not your average youtube enthusiast colorist.

Shame... ����

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I assure you two things, 1. you didn't watch my video or else you'd know that I say everything you just wrote here. Most of the look came from the set. 2. For how far off my shot was that I worked on, I nailed the look of the reference image.

Also, you get me the dailies and I will nail this look 100% without a doubt.

Colorists are humans but somehow people such as yourself make them sound like immortal or some alien from another planet.

I respect Jill and have spoken to her before. She's a super down to earth person and I agree with you that I am sure she's beyond talented that doesn't negate my talent or what I am capable of.

I am tired of this community how everyone comes out to pull each other's legs and make them feel small. I am not your average youtube enthusiast colorist.

Shame... ����

Those are pulled quotes from the article, it's not saying that colorists are "immortal" but rather that their approach was very different than what you did. I skimmed your video and you're isolating colors and throwing on power windows, multiple nodes, etc.
What the article is saying is that they created a blanket 3D LUT for the whole film and the only thing they did in the DI was play around with the levels a bit to make everything balance out or match from shot to shot or whatever similar to what would have happened if it were shot on film instead of digital.

 

[Waqas Qazi]

Those are pulled quotes from the article, it's not saying that colorists are "immortal" but rather that their approach was very different than what you did. I skimmed your video and you're isolating colors and throwing on power windows, multiple nodes, etc.
What the article is saying is that they created a blanket 3D LUT for the whole film and the only thing they did in the DI was play around with the levels a bit to make everything balance out or match from shot to shot or whatever similar to what would have happened if it were shot on film instead of digital.

I get it. In Hollywood and on high-end tv shows they create a show LUT and in DI they are balancing and making minor adjustments but unfortunately, 99.9% of the world out there doesn't have the luxury that company 3 does so as a colorist, I show people ways they can take advantage of the tools available to the rest of the world.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I am tired of this community how everyone comes out to pull each other's legs and make them feel small. I am not your average youtube enthusiast colorist.

I think you trivialize the work that was involved in doing a film at this scale, and you're trying to sell a fantasy to amateurs who don't know any better. They're not going to be able to recreate this look. I think it's very disrespectful to the DP and the colorist to do videos like this, because it misleads the public and perpetuates the myth that this is something people can recreate by following a half-hour YouTube video that's basically trying to sell you stuff.

I ain't got no shame, because I'm not trying to sell anybody anything. I'm just a colorist with more years of color post experience in Hollywood than you've been alive. But I don't sell smoke to people: I try to actually tell the truth, and if anybody (including clients) asked for a look like this, I'd tell them there's a lot more to it than just twirling knobs.

I get it. In Hollywood and on high-end tv shows they create a show LUT and in DI they are balancing and making minor adjustments but unfortunately, 99.9% of the world out there doesn't have the luxury that company 3 does so as a colorist, I show people ways they can take advantage of the tools available to the rest of the world.

I don't think that's unreasonable. I think a lot of what good colorists do is offer filmmakers options, but I also try to explain the realistic limitations of what's possible in post. I often frame comments as, "well, I don't know if we can do that, but let's see how close we can get." And that's not the same thing as, "I can match the look of a $50 million dollar film for your $5000 short." I wouldn't ever say that.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

I think you trivialize the work that was involved in doing a film at this scale, and you're trying to sell a fantasy to amateurs who don't know any better. They're not going to be able to recreate this look. I think it's very disrespectful to the DP and the colorist to do videos like this, because it misleads the public and perpetuates the myth that this is something people can recreate by following a half-hour YouTube video that's basically trying to sell you stuff.

I ain't got no shame, because I'm not trying to sell anybody anything. I'm just a colorist with more years of color post experience in Hollywood than you've been alive. But I don't sell smoke to people: I try to actually tell the truth, and if anybody (including clients) asked for a look like this, I'd tell them there's a lot more to it than just twirling knobs.


I don't think that's unreasonable. I think a lot of what good colorists do is offer filmmakers options, but I also try to explain the realistic limitations of what's possible in post. I often frame comments as, "well, I don't know if we can do that, but let's see how close we can get." And that's not the same thing as, "I can match the look of a $50 million dollar film for your $5000 short." I wouldn't ever say that.

To be fair, I think he says it right up front in the video that he gives client realistic expectations on what can and can't be done based on the footage they have.

 

[Waqas Qazi]

To be fair, I think he says it right up front in the video that he gives client realistic expectations on what can and can't be done based on the footage they have.

�� you're fighting a losing battle, my friend. Let Marc tell the whole world how Color Grading is 100% harder than rocket science and no one can ever learn it then the only few that hold the key. Of course, he is one of them because he's been doing this before you or me or even our parents were born. ��

It's laughable.

 

[Michael Tiemann]

Waqas, thanks for trying to be a productive participant here on REDUSER.net. I watched the video and thought you did a decent job of both making proper disclaimers and showing a valid workflow for achieving a credible result based on footage that was likely shot for an entirely different purpose.

I definitely agree that when color grading is part of an overall production plan, it play an almost magical role in making the look come to life. And I agree that without proper planning and execution, colorists can wind up with footage that's really a challenge to grade, whether due to bad exposure, bad contrast ratios, bad lighting quality, and so forth, all the way to terrible composition, inconsistent focus, bad set design, you name it.

I think there is a lot of value to the idea of looking at what the masters do, and then analyzing it from the point of view to "how can I do more of that?" And I think your video does do this. There are many who have posted problematic footage on REDUSER.net who don't have the foggiest notion of why their footage looks so terrible or why they can't get the look they want. If they had done a more thorough study of reference material before they and/or their production team started the project--particularly how they or their production team solved real-world problems that helped to make the reference a good reference--they'd be miles ahead.

Keep up the good work!

 

[Marc Wielage]

�� you're fighting a losing battle, my friend. Let Marc tell the whole world how Color Grading is 100% harder than rocket science and no one can ever learn it then the only few that hold the key. Of course, he is one of them because he's been doing this before you or me or even our parents were born. ��

It's laughable.

But amazingly, it's true. My IMDB credits don't list the projects I did prior to 1980, but there were a few. And I worked as a camera operator for almost ten years before that.

I have zero problems with accredited teachers who instruct people with the basics on color, particularly people who are certified by Blackmagic and follow a structured course. I also have no problem with people teaching specific techniques, especially for the stuff that's not covered thoroughly in the manuals -- and there's a lot of that. We all have something we can learn from each other, and no one person knows everything. Knowing Resolve is a process, a long journey, not a 30-minute YouTube video.

However, there are a lot of minions and morons out there who call themselves "experts" after they've used software like Resolve for 2 or 3 years, and they come up with methods they think will match the look of Lord of the Rings, or The Matrix, ar The Revenant, or the Orange & Teal look, and on and on and on. I think this is just bullshit and bad for the industry, because it's as silly as it would be to say, "I can teach you how to edit just like Jim Cameron cuts his films," or "I can show you how to light and move the camera like Roger Deakins," or "I can show you the secrets of 4-time Oscar-winning sound mixer Greg Landaker" or "here's how to direct like Michael Bay." People who do this are selling a pipe dream at best, and perpetuating fraud at the worst.

There are no secrets beyond time and hard work. As an old friend of mine likes to say: "it takes years of experience to get years of experience." The longer you work, the more lucky accidents and discoveries you'll make, especially with a program as deep as Resolve.

If you were to just create general tutorials telling beginners how to use Resolve, I wouldn't say a word. At the same time, I do think spam posts on discussion groups like this are frowned upon. I don't mind real solutions and answers, but promoting YouTube channels is just an opportunity to make money and get recognition, nothing more. From my perspective, there's generally very little real information in the videos there. [There are rare exceptions, like the instructional pieces Juan Melara has done and a handful of others, but none of them are selling anything or making promises they can't keep.]

The legit training resources like Ripple, FXPHD, and MixingLight are all fine and recommended, and there's good solid information there. The Resolve manual is good and their free textbooks are excellent. Blackmagic's accredition program is a great idea and recommended. And note that none of the accredited instructors tell students, "hey, do this and your work will look like a $50 million Hollywood film."

 

[Michael Tiemann]

Shit ain't rocket science man. I know you're threatened cuz I'm showing people how easy it can be to create those looks. You sit back and hate. ������ So pety and grandpa of you. Come at me.

I take back my compliments. You've gone rogue.

 

[David Dominguez]

Shit ain't rocket science man. I know you're threatened cuz I'm showing people how easy it can be to create those looks. You sit back and hate. ������ So pety and grandpa of you. Come at me.

wow, get a grip man. yikes

 

[Dermot Shane]

tale from the front lines, this week
have a feature shot mainly on Alexa / RAW, with some dragon inserts
shot last May
art direction, wardrobe, set dec etc etc had a color pallette to work from that was no where near "Joker"
was asked to try to move it into the "Joker" world, working in Resolve
got close enough to make everyone happy with out any masks, or keys, or -vs- curves, or buckets-0-nodes
worked in ACEScct, useing L*a*b, and Paul Dore's tools
clean simple maths that copy/pasted across scenes with out any tweaks needed other than time of day and some matching, but that's normal
the method shown at the start of the thread ism well, not clean maths, not simple, an to my eye looks like it's been worked over far too much
you can get there much more simply if one undestands math a tiny bit, and has decent external scopes
running out a DCP tonight once the last VFX are in, counted 3 shots with NR (all Dji) and eight shots with a key or mask out of 1280 shots
pretty cool what can be done with a subtle hand, but it's harder than walking all over the image
not a fan of the entire approach, would be a nightmare to match across 1280 shots

 

[Marc Wielage]

pretty cool what can be done with a subtle hand, but it's harder than walking all over the image
not a fan of the entire approach, would be a nightmare to match across 1280 shots

Dermot is very wise. I often sit back in the color room and calculate how many total shots are in the show when we conform, and a lot of modern films move fast, like 1500-1600 cuts in 2 hours. (Joker had longer cuts but I would bet required a lot of dynamics and windows, and had a longer run time. Blockbusters could easily go past 2000 cuts.) Even spending just 1 minute on color per cut is 1600 minutes, which is about 26 hours for a single pass (3 days).

An additional pass with client could conceivably be another 26 hours (3 more days). Trims and fixes would add a couple more days to this. And if the client wants to get very fussy and critical, or they bring multiple people into the session, this amount of time could triple or quadruple very quickly. (I frequently will grouse, "I'm sorry, guys, but we can't turn this into a Clairol commercial," where they could literally spend 10 hours on 10 shots.) I've had a few clients for whom we never did more than 5-6 minutes of material per day. This is great when you have the time and budget, not so great when you're staring a delivery date in the face and a very limited budget. Really tough in the indie or episodic TV world.

Simpler approaches for color can yield amazing results under the right conditions, but it does start with getting it right on set. I've seen many projects where on set or in dailies, 80% of the look is already right there. I particularly see this with bold, contemporary shows that use colored gels on set and all kinds of really complex lighting. We can't really do this kind of thing in color, unless you go with a very heavy VFX techniques... and again, that's not gonna happen in a show done in 2-3 weeks. Managing client expectations might be the single hardest job for any colorist. I'd love to see Waquas tackle that in his next tutorial, which I will watch. Even after 40 years, I have a hard time telling a client, "no, we're out of time, live with what you got, get the F out of here." Instead, I try to smile and say, "well, let's try and see what happens." But there is a point where a massive fancy look ain't gonna happen.

One workaround used on big-budget blockbusters is to use a "team" approach, so there's really 3 or 4 colorists working on the same feature film often 24 hours a day in multiple rooms. Then, the supervising colorist can set looks on several key scenes, and the assistants (or regular colorists) maintain that look across multiple shots. And I have seen complex approaches work, particularly for extreme roto work, radical keys, layer mixers, defocus windows, and so on. Real world, it takes time to pull that off. Particularly for beginning colorists, you have to scale your expectations down and just get through each day and try to keep things reasonable. Imitiating a blockbuster look is not going to work when the material is far below a certain point.