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 :)

The LOW CON+SLIGHT HALATION OLPF thread

Patrick Tresch said:
I've been to the movies and watched "Turner".
How horrible is the hallation and lack of resolution for this Cinemascope picture!
What a pitty. I was hoping for a visual experience but apart from a couple of sunsets, the picture was a desapointment.

Don't bake a look in the camera. I want to have the choice of doing it on set shot by shot.

Patrick

PS: It doesn't mean it won't win any awards ;-)
Click to expand...

You're assuming that the final film doesn't look exactly like the cinematographer and director intended... and if it did, then what was wrong with them baking in the look by using older lenses? Why is the only correct way to achieve a look is to do it in post?

And isn't there some irony about complaining about a lack of visual clarity in a movie about the painter Turner?
 
Patrick Tresch said:
I've been to the movies and watched "Turner".
How horrible is the hallation and lack of resolution for this Cinemascope picture!
What a pitty. I was hoping for a visual experience but apart from a couple of sunsets, the picture was a desapointment.

Don't bake a look in the camera. I want to have the choice of doing it on set shot by shot.

Patrick

PS: It doesn't mean it won't win any awards ;-)
Click to expand...

Patrick,

IMHO, a Low Con/Halation OLPF is exactly the opposite of baking a look in the camera, since it is removable. Use it only when you want to.
That's the whole point of the Interchangeable OLPF system.

You want a low con feel and slight halation to have a more 35mm film-like image? Use this OLPF.
You want a clean, sharp image? Use any of the other OLPFs.

Simple. No one is forcing anybody to bake anything… unless they want to, of course :-)



--
 
well if so many people want an Arri Alexa looking OLPF, can we just use theirs lol?
 
I like the Dragon more than I like Alexa, so I don't want an "Alexa" OLPF.

I want a "35mm film" OLPF. And it looks like the best bet to achieve that is a Low Con/Slight Halation OLPF.

This notwithstanding, there is no denying that Alexa got a few things right as far as making the image as "filmic" as possible.



--
 
more of a joke on my part...thought i edited my post to add "kind of like Tesla sells cars with some Mercedes parts on the interiors.."

not sure what happened to my edit, but regardless all in jest...and i love the film/alexa lo con halo look
 
I concur. I don't need a Alexa style OLFP, but I would definitely buy one that would mimic the look of 35mm.
 
Curious. Is there a specific filter I could put in front of the lens to achieve this same effect? Anyone have any recommendations for one? I'd like to try it out and see how the look changes.

Thanks!
 
Nikhil Kamkolkar said:
Curious. Is there a specific filter I could put in front of the lens to achieve this same effect? Anyone have any recommendations for one? I'd like to try it out and see how the look changes.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Many have been mentioned in this thread. Ultra-Con, Low-Con, Pro Mist, Satin, etc.
 
Tiffen Pearlescent is awesome!!!
 
David Mullen ASC said:
You're assuming that the final film doesn't look exactly like the cinematographer and director intended... and if it did, then what was wrong with them baking in the look by using older lenses? Why is the only correct way to achieve a look is to do it in post?

And isn't there some irony about complaining about a lack of visual clarity in a movie about the painter Turner?
Click to expand...


Hello David,

I'm not assuming anything about how it was inteded. I'm also saying that the look should be a creative choice on a shot basis made on the set (read optical filtration and no post work).

If only there could have been some work on the clarity side of the picture to enter a more visual inspiration of Turner's work, as you know, Turner didn't created smeary images, as his contemporary colegues could have mock, there are always huge amount of details, but the color used, the painted textures and lights are organically matched to create a visually coherent picture.

Turner is not the painter of "lack of visual clarity" as there are a lot of bright and dark contrasts in his painting. I was just complaining that the visual aspect of the film was merely a bad mimmic of his work. If blurred, to make it Turner like was the intent, I don't know, but it looked soft... Now purely technically, I was fairly close to the 2.40 screen and I'm now more than ever convinced that 2k in scope mode isn't appropriate for the big screen. I'm also convinced that the question resolution/details/visual clarity/contrast should have been more in the center of the DP's preoccupation when doing a film about Turner.

Patrick


 
Patrick Tresch said:
Do you really think that Turner's work has a "lack of visual clarity"?

Pat
Click to expand...

Yes, sometimes he does, but it is on purpose, and it is why it is art.

Almost all paintings could be said to lack visual clarity. If they were as clear as a photo
then they might not be so artistic. I love Turners work because they do NOT look clear and real.
 
What I think is that if you respect Turner's right to portray reality in a certain personal way, you should also respect Dick Pope's and Mike Leigh's right to portray Turner's life in a certain personal way. I think they have been doing this long enough that we can assume that the look is intentional and not some sort of accident due to lack of skill or knowledge (plus they shot the movie digitally, so they saw the results live on the set!) It's one thing to say you would have done it differently, which is fine, but it's another to imply that there is a right way and a wrong way to shoot a movie, and they picked the wrong way to soften the image. They just picked a different way. Anyway, using diffusion filters is not the same thing as using older lenses to create a look.

And using diffusion filters of different strengths on a shot-by-shot basis rather than a softer lens for everything is still "baking in" the look, i.e. doing it in-camera; the opposite of baking in the look is shooting clean and neutral and creating the look in post.
 
Any official word from RED?

I saw a great European film shot on the Alexa two days ago, again I was struck by how beautiful and filmic the image looked. I'm sure a similar OLPF on Dragon would open so much more possibilities, given the higher resolution, higher frame rates, better colors (IMO) etc. Not to mention, I watched INHERENT VICE yesterday evening, and the highlights were simply gorgeous. The "low con/halation" effect when shooting against bright sources/windows was also stunning. Of course, that was 35mm film.

David Mullen ASC said:
Anyway, using diffusion filters is not the same thing as using older lenses to create a look.

And using diffusion filters of different strengths on a shot-by-shot basis rather than a softer lens for everything is still "baking in" the look, i.e. doing it in-camera; the opposite of baking in the look is shooting clean and neutral and creating the look in post.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

David - it seems you would definitely enjoy a Low Con/Slight Halation/35mm film OLPF (call it anyway you want).
 
The main reason it might appeal to me is that I don't like stacking filters, and you know that you'd be using ND filters. Though of course that could be flipped and the ND's could go behind the lens...

I don't want to fall into that reductive thinking that a diffusion filter is the only thing standing in the way from making a digital image look like film.
 
Bob Gundu said:
Many have been mentioned in this thread. Ultra-Con, Low-Con, Pro Mist, Satin, etc.
Click to expand...

Thanks Bob. I want to rephrase my question.

For those saying that the DRAGON is just a filter away from having an Alexa-like filmic feel, can anyone provide a specific filter/manufacturer/strength that does this?

If there truly is such a filter, and stacking filters is not desirable, then wouldn't the motion mount with this filter pretty much eliminate the difference between dragon and alexa, atleast as far as the 'alexa look' is concerned?

I'd think that if anyone were to create a filter that's named 'alexa-look for dragon filter' it'd sell pretty well.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
What I think is that if you respect Turner's right to portray reality in a certain personal way, you should also respect Dick Pope's and Mike Leigh's right to portray Turner's life in a certain personal way. I think they have been doing this long enough that we can assume that the look is intentional and not some sort of accident due to lack of skill or knowledge (plus they shot the movie digitally, so they saw the results live on the set!) It's one thing to say you would have done it differently, which is fine, but it's another to imply that there is a right way and a wrong way to shoot a movie, and they picked the wrong way to soften the image. They just picked a different way. Anyway, using diffusion filters is not the same thing as using older lenses to create a look.

And using diffusion filters of different strengths on a shot-by-shot basis rather than a softer lens for everything is still "baking in" the look, i.e. doing it in-camera; the opposite of baking in the look is shooting clean and neutral and creating the look in post.
Click to expand...



I don't juge films by names. I didn't like the look for the mentionned reasons. Please give me the "right" of that subjective statement. Respect has nothing to do with watching a movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top