Shitty color grading thread

why do color graders on digital movies suck at their jobs so hard?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=pla_pd1uatg
arri.com/camera/alexa/workflow/working_with_arriraw/mastering/gamma_choice/
yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/DisplayPrepDemo.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

artistic vision

Piss filters are the new thing in cinema, they just caught up to a decade old videogame trend

a lot of the time what you are seeing is shitty conversions to different formats and you're viewing them on displays that can't display accurate color.

practically everything looks better in the theater

If you want to start a thread like this go to people here are retarded and the most sophisticated ones are the kodi streamers.

It's not just the piss filters though. They just totally ignore values and make the whole thing look flat as hell.

This is total bullshit. It's the same when you watch it in the theater. If this were true then then things shot on film would have the same issue and they don't.

>It's the same when you watch it in the theater. If this were true then then things shot on film would have the same issue and they don't.

But it's not the same, user. For example, the Matrix series is well known for color casts in the discs that weren't in the original film. Also film format doesn't matter because the reels are scanned to digital for transfer.

Anyway, your thread could use a few (You)'s

bottom is so much better holy shit

Both of these are meme color grading and equally distracting if you are looking for them. The bottom one is not any more natural than the top.

> (OP)
> The bottom one is not any more natural than the top.

Please get out

>But it's not the same, user.

for the most part it is.

>, the Matrix series is well known for color casts in the discs that weren't in the original film

that was a creative decision that was made for the home video release, not an issue of format or accurate color. Also the matrix wasn't shot digitally.

>Also film format doesn't matter because the reels are scanned to digital for transfer.

Are you retarded? Film format wouldn't matter if the color graders on digitally-shot movies were actually good at what they do but they're not. They transfer to film to digital AFTER it's gone through all of the chemical processes to develop it. The image that comes out of a digital camera is intentionally flat in order for the colorist to have as much information as possible to work with when grading. It is then up to the colorist to make it look good which they frequently fail at. Furthermore digital cameras capture light in a linear manner as opposed to a logarithmic manner. You CAN make digital look like film but it takes a colorist or DP that really knows their craft and frequently the people color grading digitally-shot movies don't, so they end up looking very flat in general and often severely overexposed in outdoor shots.

It's oversaturated but the skin tones look a lot better than in the top one.

>Furthermore digital cameras capture light in a linear manner as opposed to a logarithmic manner.
Arri's capture in logc which is not linear. Also, camera linearity is a meme, they're all non-linear as hell.

Its still heavily graded and manipulated.
No footage looks like that straight out of the camera.
Blue/Orange is still artificial as the top one.
You're just more used to it.

>Blue/Orange is still artificial as the top one.
Nothing wrong with artificial look. People don'y like reality.That's why OOTFs exist

too contrasty. eye straining.

here is kino filter, much smooth contrast. you can see the negro now.

There's literally nothing wrong with over saturation

>Are you retarded? Film format wouldn't matter if the color graders on digitally-shot movies were actually good at what they do but they're not. They transfer to film to digital AFTER it's gone through all of the chemical processes to develop it.

You're implying that corrections aren't done after scan or that color depth and colorspace in the format we view online are even remotely close to the original

Compare a film that you've seen in the theater, bought on hard format and watched on streaming and you'll see what I'm gettting at.

>The image that comes out of a digital camera is intentionally flat in order for the colorist to have as much information as possible to work with when grading. It is then up to the colorist to make it look good which they frequently fail at.

The OP is implying that Sicario looks awful and it did not look awful in screening.

>that was a creative decision that was made for the home video release, not an issue of format or accurate color. Also the matrix wasn't shot digitally.

I guess this is a tough argument because there are a lot of versions of it floating around now

>capture light in a linear manner as opposed to a logarithmic manner.

This is camera dependent

Went too far, looks like a cheap TV show

they dont. you have a shitty $200 screen

Way too contrasty, the hair on his neck looks like a black hole.

PS. Unless your display is calibrated to within 1 Delta ICtCp then you can't talk shit about the look of movies.

big movies can't look natural or gritty any more. Blame Tony Scott and Jerry Bruckheimer.

Apart from skin tones. We're naturally more sensitive to changes in skin tone saturation because that's how we read each other's emotional states. Push the saturation too much and the actors looks constantly flustered.

You're arguing against the decision of a 13 oscar-nominated cinematographer

I guess you know better

which it is.

looks like tv show because is bad lightning, not because editing. editing made it evident.

The only thing worse than bad color correction is when they do it retroactively. It's the reason I still keep my LOTR DVDs around, the Blu-Ray release is fucked into the blue spectrum.

Top is the Blu-Ray, bottom is DVD.

All digital films are graded. No movie you see has the original grade it was shot on, because it's always shot with the purpose of changing it later.

It's not the cinematographer that colored the movie, it's the colorist.

Yeah

Oh boy, a "people don't understand color grading" thread

yeah, vital plot information is stored in neck shadows. silly person.

All films are graded, period. Choosing the right kind of film stock for your film was a part of the grading process.

It's because modern filmmakers are using digital cameras, which default to an extremely bland low-contrast output, but they're too fucking lazy to actually rebalance it

B+

No nigger face ever contained vital information. But if you're trying to make a good looking image, you went too far with it.

>blu ray
>is blue
kinoetry

This is dodging the point, because many DPs do play a role in color look and a lot of what gets in camera has to do with lighting which the DP has control of. You are literally monitoring while shooting.

another cuck thread

Why the fuck do they do this shit, i used to configure my colors because of this and then the next movie was wrong o always thought something was wrong with my screen

both look unnatural

The camera output is actually really nice and contrasty, but your screen can't show all that contrast simultaneously, so it has to be crushed. A 14-15 f-stop camera sensor image can't be shown directly on a 10 f-stop TV or 11 f-stop cinema projector.

it's a "my monitor is shit but I haven't realized it yet" thread.

youtube.com/watch?v=pla_pd1uatg

4:00

Except that's not really true. Read Harry Matthias's The Death and Rebirth of Cinema. In the old days the DPs would know the response curve of their film stock and could plan accordingly. They don't have that luxury with digital cameras, where the sensor's response curve is a secret.

>The OP is implying that Sicario looks awful and it did not look awful in screening.

It had the same flat look in screening that it had on the blu-ray.

ALL digital cameras capture light in a linear manner because that's how digital cameras work. LogC is just a logarithmic curve that is applied to the digital image, it doesn't mean the camera itself captures LIGHT in a logarithmic manner

Yeah, I've spoken with a few colorists. They all have their favored look and directors largely depend on their opinions. One even admitted to having a slider which is not attached to anything, it's just there to make the director happy that the colorist is changing something closer to their vision when in reality the image stays the same.

way too bright, you killed all the weight and tension

>ALL digital cameras capture light in a linear manner because that's how digital cameras work.
Except it's not, they still have a toe and the knee. They're much smaller and motivated by the pixel readout noise, but they're there.

LogC is more than just encoding. Arri's pixels have dual exposure.

They do have that luxury because they can pretty much give it any response curve they want in post.
A DP who actually knows what he's doing can get digital to look almost exactly like film. Case in point: Steve Yedlin's work on San Andreas. Pic related.

The same reason they film in 24fps, to make it feel less real and more like a movie

I wasn't objecting to the fact they have this ability. I was objecting to the fact you said many DPs had that knowledge. On the inside, the majority of seasoned DPs are still baffled by digital cameras but they have to use them.

>color grading gives weight and tension

You're trying to contrive import where none exists. Yes it might "subtly" add that feeling, but it also blatantly washes out the picture.

...

If you guys want so bad to see realistic looking movies you should watch british cinema and fuck off.

Well you just admitted color grading does give you a certain, subtle feeling which is important for the overall feel of the film. The top picture looks way less washed out than the bottom one, leading me to believe you either have a shitty monitor, or simply don't know what you're talking about.

>You're trying to contrive import where none exists.

Watch A Single Man

>resorting to semantics

If I wanted to see the film through a shitty filter I'd close my right eye to see through my color blind left eye

Didn't that dude learn to stay away from white women?

>A Single Man

K I N O
I
N
O

>caring more about contrast than emotional impact of a movie
I want you out of my Sup Forums right now.

>they give it totally flat values in order to make it look like a movie
except movies shot on film don't have this problem because Color labs actually know what they're doing while most digital colorists seem to have no clue.

It's not about them looking realistic, it's about them looking GOOD. I'm not just talking about color. The biggest problem for me is the flat values. I mean what DP or colorist honestly looks at pic related and says "yep, it's good to go!"

This autist again
Can't you realize that colour's affect the audience perception of a scene and altering that perception is literally the entire point of cinema?

Show me a single peer-reviewed study that color grading in this manner changes how an audience perceives and rates a film.

Are you really arguing that colour doesn't impact emotional states?

Are you making claims based on nothing but your own feelings?

This is what happens when autists try to discuss art.

...

>except movies shot on film don't have this problem because Color labs actually know what they're doing while most digital colorists seem to have no clue.

i feel like part of what is happening here is with the advance of dynamic range in the sensors people don't know what to do with all the detail. stuff shot in film usually doesn't have shadow detail, so when people see everything in the shadows, the look appears flat.

Do they ban google at your retard ranch?

Top feels more I don't know, cinematic?

Just feels better. Get over it.

>LE I WANT A PERFECTLY REALISTIC COLOR CONTRAST BECAUSE I'M A RETARD INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING WHY CINEMATOGRAPHERS USE COLOR GRADING

Maybe one day you'll grow up and actually understand how movies are made.

...

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T LINK ONE!

You've fallen for the meme of color grading. There is literally no proof that different grades as OP shows influences how a person processes and reacts to a film.

>log C is more than just encoding

arri.com/camera/alexa/workflow/working_with_arriraw/mastering/gamma_choice/

>"LogC is a so-called scene-based encoding"

The Arri group website itself says otherwise.

Why are niggers so fucking greasy?

>stuff shot in film usually doesn't have shadow detail
This is inaccurate

The negative has quite a lot of shadow detail, which then gets lost in the usual process neg -> interpositive -> internegative -> release print.

They usually go for the extra detail in blu-ray releases of old movies, which fucks up original artistic vision

>This is inaccurate
>The negative has quite a lot of shadow detail, which then gets lost in the usual process neg -> interpositive -> internegative -> release print.

sure, sure i understand and agree. i mean more in the sense of the delivered product. what i mean is that there are plenty of times i shoot now where the camera sees way better than i do, and the image looks weird to me. i can't be the only one who thinks like this.

There is a difference between color grading and modern """color grading"""

Pretty sure Deakins knows what he was doing with the colours for this film.

Having them side by side like that really highlights the difference in skin tone of the African and European. Imagine the view of observing her griping his large erected manhood in the palm of her small, yet supple hands. It would watch like the opposite ends of the color spectrum coming together to perform some ritual dance with each other that is meant to replenish the soul. In this ritual, Black represented the hardness and aggression of man, and her hands representing the empathy and softness of woman. You can't help but to think that these two opposites belong together, as if the unison and stability of the world is dependent on the relationship between the African male and the European female.

Even in the "normal" version, there are loads of sequences where they've color graded it to an extreme.

just take the rivendel part as an example

No I'm sure an autistic on Sup Forums knows more than one of the greatest living cinematographers.

IF IT'S NOT REALISTIC IT'S SHIIIIIIIIIIIIT

There has to be a logical reason for choices like this. Is it a result of gearing for the lowest common denominator displays?

I've won an Oscar at the Sci-Tech awards, what was Deakins won?

except it worked in sicario

this is okay
this looks like shit

I'm not even talking about the colors, my problem is more the values than anything else. And in terms of grading digitally-shot films Deakins seems to have no clue.

Digitally-shot films can look like pic related if the DP has proper understanding and oversight over the grading.

With the specific case of rivendel, it is a deliberate artistic choice to create a sense of dusky autumn to represent the end times of the elves.

>buy new monitor
>tfw colour grading so inconsistent and shit that you think you have your colour settings wrong

Do these people even go to school or are they all 'self-taught'?

>watching movies on your monitor

Maybe the flat values used are intentional, not everything has to look like film now given the flexibility afforded by digital tools. Deakins has been using digital for a long time and is an advocate for it after all.

>not calibrating your monitor and recalibrating your video player to match

Not all of us are rich.

>missing the point

>Maybe the flat values used are intentional
>literally "it's intentionally bad!"

Having proper values simply a basic element of visual aesthetics. It's literally just straight-up bad cinematography.

digital is cancer
35mm FILM all the way

I thought Deakins did good work in Sicario so it's not a problem to me.

>digital is cancer

It wouldn't be if the color graders were actually good at what they do.

yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/DisplayPrepDemo.html

Steve Yedlin is basically the only DP who is actually able to get digital footage to look almost exactly like film.

this desu

The lighting and composition and all that were great but the values were horrifically flat. Which is a shame because he actually did pretty well with the values in Prisoners although it did look a little flat in some scenes.