Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Video - why don't movies look like movies anymore?

FnZGlFH.jpeg
 
1NosferatuFocus FeaturesJarin Blaschke
2The BrutalistA24Lol Crawley
3Dune: Part TwoWarner Bros.Greig Fraser
4MariaNetflixEdward Lachman
5Emilia PérezNetflixPaul Guilhaume
 
Personally, I REALLY dislike HDR films. I find the overly bright highlights incredibly distracting and unreal. Give me a well-shot SDR film every moment of every day.
 
Good for you, but that does not make Tomasso’s claims any more valid. I’m not here as an HDR evangelist, but to clear up misconceptions. HDR actually enhances contrast & color depth and flat gray visuals stem from improper lighting or grading, not from the format.

As Steve Yedlin’s correctly observed, “Seems that filmmakers usually put all their authorship and intent into SDR and HDR is just an add-on deliverable.” The result is that many if not most HDR shows are little more than SDR in a PQ ST-2084 container.
 
Last edited:
That’s all on the colorist.
Click to expand...

No, it’s not. The colorist isn’t some rogue actor who does whatever they like. Their job is to bring the creative vision of filmmakers to life. It’s a collaborative undertaking. Anyhow, you say you agree with me, but we don’t agree at all. I never said anything about the colorist being the sole person responsible for the look of a film or TV series.
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
The colorist.
Click to expand...
Just for reference, I’ve never seen the colorist override a director or DP. They very much tend to be service oriented, and it’s not like they have the final say on anything. I have seen a producer push back on bolder choices, and certainly have seen bad notes from a client/agency.
 
Jon Pais said:
Good for you, but that does not make Tomasso’s claims any more valid. I’m not here as an HDR evangelist, but to clear up misconceptions. HDR actually enhances contrast & color depth and flat gray visuals stem from improper lighting or grading, not from the format.

As Steve Yedlin’s correctly observed, “Seems that filmmakers usually put all their authorship and intent into SDR and HDR is just an add-on deliverable.” The result is that many if not most HDR shows are little more than SDR in a PQ ST-2084 container.
Click to expand...
I’d like to learn more about how to light and shoot for HDR. My experience is limited—I’ve never shot TV or bigger budget narrative—, but it just hasn’t come up in prep or on set. Don’t think I’ve ever monitored in HDR.
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
Maybe colorists have more power in the commercial realm? I have heard a couple of DPs talk about that issue. Maybe I don't have enough data.
Click to expand...
I think maybe you’re referring to the common complaint that DPs are sometimes unpleasantly surprised by the finish on an TV advertisement (or that sort of thing) they’ve shot.
Typically, this is because the colorist doesn’t know the DPs intentions, or possibly even the director’s, because especially on a commercial there might be little effort to bring the DP for the session or otherwise transmit those intentions. Happens on other types of projects, too, of course, but the client structure typical of commercials (with an agency and a client getting involved in creative) can intensify this disconnect/decision to overrrule on-set decisions. It’s definitely not because the colorist is considered powerful!
(This is part of the reason for the CDL, by the way—to pass along certain image choices as metadata for the post and VFX team to see.)
 
M Harvey said:
I think maybe you’re referring to the common complaint that DPs are sometimes unpleasantly surprised by the finish on an TV advertisement (or that sort of thing) they’ve shot.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's it.
 
Then it’s got nothing to do with the thread’s topic, since ads are neither movies nor HDR.
 
Last edited:
Colorists are trained to handle colors as those should be. The first cut the colorist does is always good. Then comes the DP and other folks, who start spoiling the colors. So far so good. Then comes finally the studio guys, they handout the pdfs, the colors should look like that. I have seen that happening with movies, commercials etc when it looks like the forced look or over-use of luts. If you look at small budget pieces, those still look great where the cinematographer and director are completely in sync with colorist.
 
digivims said:
Colorists are trained to handle colors as those should be. The first cut the colorist does is always good. Then comes the DP and other folks, who start spoiling the colors. So far so good. Then comes finally the studio guys, they handout the pdfs, the colors should look like that. I have seen that happening with movies, commercials etc when it looks like the forced look or over-use of luts. If you look at small budget pieces, those still look great where the cinematographer and director are completely in sync with colorist.
Click to expand...
Someone needs to tell producers that orange & teal don't sell tickets. Nobody ever didn't buy a ticket because a film had nice, natural colours.
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
Someone needs to tell producers that orange & teal don't sell tickets. Nobody ever didn't buy a ticket because a film had nice, natural colours.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with your thoughts here, and I'm a bit tired of that look, too. But I do just want to point out that visual stylization has always been a part of commercial filmmaking, and it is prone to trends. These trends can get played out-- after a few years it can feel as if every movie (of a certain genre) has been shot handheld, or shot with a tobacco filter or no backlight or super shallow depth of field or any number of other elements, ranging from subtle to "found footage."
Filmmakers are always walking a tight rope between fresh (or even innovative) visuals, the needs of the story, and commercial expectations. And these visual elements that can become tropes often start as solutions to a visual need. For example, "teal & orange" at one time brought a fresh comic book feeling to action films, but it also was a way to create color contrast that helps make action legible and can be motivated without too much trouble (because teal and orange are arguably just heightened versions of light we encounter in real world artificial light and daylight. Red & green is tough to sell outside of Christmas action or "trapped in a car" movies.)
As for the audience: perhaps few people consciously buy a ticket because of a particular color design-- but I think they do learn that particular color schemes, contrast ratios, etc. promise "comic book action" or "edgy horror" or "artsy festival movie." Sometimes, they're in the mood for a movie like YYY, so they buy tickets for movie XXX that looks like movie YYY.
Long story short: I don't think it was conscious, but I do think that orange & teal actually sold some tickets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top