- Moderator
- #61
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 13,392
- Reaction score
- 795
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.phfx.com
As it relates to my personal taste, I'm the only colorist here in the Bahamas doing work for people other than themselves.
There are difficult topics to get into between the technical, correct/accurate, and perceptually pleasing concepts that manufacturers put forth with their baseline calibration as well as their output transforms.
And perhaps the hottest take I have is that this is a good thing as that gives you a reason to go with systems x, y, or z.
On the flipside, particularly if you know what you're doing, is asking why this or that and what you want out a system.
Weirdly when there are all standards as it actually pertains to color representation/reproduction the even bigger question set forth is what looks good or better from there. That's where the fire is white hot.
That said, there's also things that some systems don't capture well that have begun to haunt the minds of technical colorists and color scientists. Even with a well crafted IDT or transform.
That nuance is again a good and bad thing as you can choose generally to do something about it or not.
Won't rant hard into it, but the most laughable thing to me is the existence of certain camera looks because people want camera X to look like camera Y. And in reality the footage that inspired their desire for that had little to do with what that is if at all.
There is merit in there for some aspects of all of this, but I think the general knowledge base needs more work. And perhaps something for me to tend to on the looks side of things, despite my awareness of providing too many options, is to provide far less and much more specific ones. I'll take that note in earnest from all of that.


