I think that a good example involved that superman and dark knight comparison thread where people noted the dark knight not actually being devoid of color but rather having really clever combinations of them which made the movie SEEM bleak without placing a blue filter.
[QUOTE=genkaz92;51392777]I think that a good example involved that superman and dark knight comparison thread where people noted the dark knight not actually being devoid of color but rather having really clever combinations of them which made the movie SEEM bleak without placing a blue filter.[/QUOTE]
I think this is a good example of what Marvel might be trying to do but getting wrong. Batman Begins and Dark Knight had excellent lighting and colors, but they were more subtle and well thought out.
[QUOTE=Lazore;51391334]Haaaha what the fuck, hard to believe but god damn his edits are much better![/QUOTE]
Now imagine even [I]more[/I] contrast crushing in the 3d versions. Butt-Awful.
[editline]18th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=shozamar;51392432]I feel like there's an argument to be made for the flatter tones in Marvel films based around the fact that their content is generally quite fantastical and so might need a bit of grounding. He pointed out that DC is less flat like that, and given that DC generally seem to be going for gritty and realistic (to very mixed success) they may be doing the same: by compensating and making the colours more vibrant.[/QUOTE]
The Skyrim/CoD solution is never the right solution, it makes everything look awful. You don't pay the best people in the world to do the best job and then slap a gray filter over everything. BlOrange has been done to death for fifteens years and it really needs to go away.
[QUOTE=FunnyStarRunner;51391847]Except almost every film that comes out now has an orange/blue color grade to it, so Marvel's muddy overcast coloring is a welcome break IMO.[/QUOTE]
I agree. When I learned about the blue and orange as contrast, I noticed it in almost every movie. I know it is a technique that works, but I appreciate the style Marvel goes for. The lack of visual filter makes the movie more grounded in reality, as if you are watching the superheroes fight outside your own window.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;51392172]His first edit was really good but the ones which followed just looked like he turned up the yellow and left everything else. I get wanting the films to be more vibrant, super hero comics are all about being vibrant, but I don't think vibrant = yellow.
Also I think it's funny that he criticised Marvel for using the same colour grading for all their films when I thought he had done the same thing for all his edits.[/QUOTE]
Except he didn't. He increased the global saturation threshold to be about 15% larger and it makes a huge difference in the color range, in which case if you're watching this on TFT monitor, you're not really seeing much improvement because your monitor is literally not built for it.
[QUOTE=ThePanther;51392615]Isn't he just talking about "crushing the blacks"?[/QUOTE]
No, crushing a range means that you're removing information. It might help to show this numerically.
Let's ignore HDR data for the moment and assume that the output video is Low Dynamic Range, or a range of 0 to 1. If the lowest black value recorded by the camera in an LDR color space was 0.05, crushing the blacks would be setting the black point to anything above that number. Let's say you chose 0.1.
You're "crushing" the range by saying anything from 0.1 or below is now 0. You've now lost all of the data between 0.05 and 0.1.
What he is proposing is that the lowest recorded value is set to 0 (black), and this is a really compelling argument because our color and contrast perception are all relative to the viewing environment as well as what you're actually viewing. A brightly lit room reduces the dynamic range of a screen or projector, whereas a movie theater is an ideal environment due to being very dark. But if you don't have a single point of pure black in your film you aren't utilizing all the range and are artificially limiting the dynamic range of your image. This is really bad when there's a lot going on onscreen and you need detail to pop.
The takeaway difference here is that by setting the lowest recorded value to black you've lost no information, only utilized your entire range of values. Setting the black value any higher than that is what "crushing" a value range means. In both cases you have good contrast and use the full value range but by crushing you lose detail in whatever direction you've clamped your luminance.
[editline]18th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;51392172]His first edit was really good but the ones which followed just looked like he turned up the yellow and left everything else. I get wanting the films to be more vibrant, super hero comics are all about being vibrant, but I don't think vibrant = yellow.
Also I think it's funny that he criticised Marvel for using the same colour grading for all their films when I thought he had done the same thing for all his edits.[/QUOTE]
You can always adjust the white balance of the scene and do endless other tweaks to bring global and local color spectrums to the desired look.
What he did is an example and you shouldn't fault him for not doing labor intensive shot for shot color correction on LDR data that cannot actually replicate what color graded HDR footage would look like. With the original data would come a more refined look. He's working with LDR data that's already not using its entire range.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;51392172]His first edit was really good but the ones which followed just looked like he turned up the yellow and left everything else. I get wanting the films to be more vibrant, super hero comics are all about being vibrant, but I don't think vibrant = yellow.
Also I think it's funny that he criticised Marvel for using the same colour grading for all their films when I thought he had done the same thing for all his edits.[/QUOTE]
I agree but I think it went a long way towards proving his point.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;51391909]I dont even get the "but it looks REEEAL" thing.
Real life has vibrant colors and deep contrast, only time it doesnt is during deep overcast or a dust storm.[/QUOTE]
Id say having less colors makes the mood more serious and "realistic" in a way. We are used to seeing very vibrant colors in scifi and fantasy type movies. It may not always be realistic but it feels more authentic in a movie like Sicario.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51391444]I'm surprised there are no fan edits out there trying to make things more interesting with the coloring since it's all post-process.[/QUOTE]
I agree, but the problem is that there's only so much you can do in terms of colour grading with the directly ripped footage from a DVD/Blu-Ray. The raw film format that films are shot in have multiple colour channels with which you can tweak very precisely their values, akin to shooting in RAW with a DSLR. You can definitely do a decent job with the rip, but having access to that raw footage will always deliver superior results.
[QUOTE=Nastardo;51393205]Id say having less colors makes the mood more serious and "realistic" in a way. We are used to seeing very vibrant colors in scifi and fantasy type movies. It may not always be realistic but it feels more authentic in a movie like Sicario.[/QUOTE]
Less colours don't look realistic though. It ends up looking washed out.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;51393290]Less colours don't look realistic though. It ends up looking washed out.[/QUOTE]
Not saying that. More like, that it has a place and is a way to affect the mood.
While increasing some saturation and making colors pop out more does make the overall image more appealing, color grading as well as color in general works best when you apply them sparingly and in ways that complement the mood of the movie/theme/motif/whatever.
Like although the orange/blue contrast is way overdone, I feel like it worked well in Mad Max:Fury Road. The orange fit the sandy and gritty nature of the daytime scenes, as well as the temperature, and the choice of blue for night gave more of a subdued and cooler feeling. I think having everything lit up like a neon sign just hurts the eyes imo and it also removes any impact more concentrated use of color can have in later scenes.
I do agree that recent Marvel movies' color grading looks pretty bland and muddy, but since they [I]are[/I] trying to give their works a more mature feeling I suppose it fits? Still I'd rather for meaningful and concentrated use of color than just upping contrast and messing around with the color curves.
"This was first used in 2000 on O Brother, Where Art Thou?"
Uh, what?
[QUOTE=Splarg!;51394022]"This was first used in 2000 on O Brother, Where Art Thou?"
Uh, what?[/QUOTE]
Digital color grading
It's good he threw a clip from John Wick in there. The film is a great example of proper colour grading. The grading changes constantly throughout the film to provoke certain emotional responses.
This is going off my recollection from one viewing mind.
At the start when his life is stable the grading is fairly flat. Muted. Representing his more depressed state.
As he starts getting back into the killing business the colors come back, saturating more the more powerful he's feeling at the time.
Some of the shootouts nearer the end have absurd saturation because of the environments, but also because he's just being a complete bad ass by that point.
Good colour grading can really make a good looking movie look incredible. And most times you won't even consciously notice it.
I work at Legend 3D, and do Stereo conversions.
I hate flat colours like this (Dr. Strange is a movie the studio worked on) because JESUS FUCK I CANT FIND THE EDGES SOMETIMES. Especially when there's dust. Fuck dust.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;51394070]It's good he threw a clip from John Wick in there. The film is a great example of proper colour grading. The grading changes constantly throughout the film to provoke certain emotional responses.
This is going off my recollection from one viewing mind.
At the start when his life is stable the grading is fairly flat. Muted. Representing his more depressed state.
As he starts getting back into the killing business the colors come back, saturating more the more powerful he's feeling at the time.
Some of the shootouts nearer the end have absurd saturation because of the environments, but also because he's just being a complete bad ass by that point.
Good colour grading can really make a good looking movie look incredible. And most times you won't even consciously notice it.[/QUOTE]
It starts off using a very dull and muted blue coloring, [sp]because of his lack of motivation following his wife's death. There is no real excitement or energy to his life, and its very depressed.[/sp]
By the end of the movie, it has swapped to a red coloring that is a bit more vibrant. [sp]He is getting back in a routine, although this one ultimately has more life to it now that in a sense he has been able to do something with the death of his wife by proxy of avenging the dog she gave him.[/sp]
Always found it weird why the Marvel Cinematic Universe was so popular. Movies always seemed really lazy to me, and this is just another lazy thing about them.
[QUOTE=Destroyox;51395034]Always found it weird why the Marvel Cinematic Universe was so popular. Movies always seemed really lazy to me, and this is just another lazy thing about them.[/QUOTE]
Well, for me it's because even the worst entries are somewhat enjoyable (Thor 2 for example), and all the movies have solid writing compared to total fuckups like Spiderman 3, Amazing Spiderman 2 and the current DC movies
Oh my [I]god[/I]
I've been preaching this for years among my friends, only I thought there was something wrong with the CGI
The fact that there's no black, only grey made me assotiate the CGI shots with older games thus I thought there's something wrong with it
Good to know someone agrees and explains why
It doesn't stop there the director is also a piece of garbage even going as far as removing good scenes like this: [video=youtube;eM8rWhKQt_w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM8rWhKQt_w[/video]
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;51394133]It starts off using a very dull and muted blue coloring, [sp]because of his lack of motivation following his wife's death. There is no real excitement or energy to his life, and its very depressed.[/sp]
By the end of the movie, it has swapped to a red coloring that is a bit more vibrant. [sp]He is getting back in a routine, although this one ultimately has more life to it now that in a sense he has been able to do something with the death of his wife by proxy of avenging the dog she gave him.[/sp][/QUOTE]
That was it! I haven't watched it since it hit store shelves, so it's been a while. But I got the general gist of the colour grading shifts.
[QUOTE=Batandy;51395165]Well, for me it's because even the worst entries are somewhat enjoyable (Thor 2 for example), and all the movies have solid writing compared to total fuckups like Spiderman 3, Amazing Spiderman 2 and the current DC movies[/QUOTE]
Spiderman 3 is good man
[QUOTE=Daemon White;51394097]I work at Legend 3D, and do Stereo conversions.
I hate flat colours like this (Dr. Strange is a movie the studio worked on) because JESUS FUCK I CANT FIND THE EDGES SOMETIMES. Especially when there's dust. Fuck dust.[/QUOTE]
did you work on dr. strange? first time i went to see a movie in 3d for a long while and i really enjoyed it, good job
[QUOTE=ThePanther;51392615]Isn't he just talking about "crushing the blacks"?[/QUOTE]
he crushes the blacks yes.
it's true that a proper deep black is great. but what he's done is destroy all the detail in the shadows, creating big black lumps instead of varying degrees of black. which is how it should be.
he's right that the marvel movies are washed out and boring, but his fix is not the way it should be done.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;51398853]he crushes the blacks yes.
it's true that a proper deep black is great. but what he's done is destroy all the detail in the shadows, creating big black lumps instead of varying degrees of black. which is how it should be.
he's right that the marvel movies are washed out and boring, but his fix is not the way it should be done.[/QUOTE]
Well his fix was an admittedly shitty quick "fix" to get the point across was it not?
I'm sure if he had the raws and spent more than a few seconds fucking with the curves he'd get actually good results. But colour correcting a previously graded thing with no idea what the baseline raw looked like isn't going to be representative of a proper fix.
Dr Strange was actually a lot better in my opinion, the sparks and magical really pop out at you in a big way, and different locations have very different colors (the temple is very brown and soft, the hospital is very blue and dark)
Even the shots he took for this video in my mind really looked a lot better than stuff from the avengers etc.
One thing I disagree on is 'true black', you should actually avoid hitting it, only the very darkest pixels should be #000000, and very very sparingly (like less than 1% even in a dark scene) because you can't go darker, so instead of getting texture on something black you get a big dark blob and it looks horrendous. Marvels black is definitely too bright though.
[QUOTE=Zombii;51398652]did you work on dr. strange? first time i went to see a movie in 3d for a long while and i really enjoyed it, good job[/QUOTE]
I didn't work on it in particular, my team was on another film with a similar issue.
I saw Dr. Strange yesterday and while I saw certain clips people were working on, I didn't see the whole thing. The main thought in my mind while watching was "Jesus fuck, those poor people". Especially on the mind-warping scenes in the beginning.
Legend 3D on it's own did ~20-30 minutes worth of footage while Stereo D worked on the rest I believe.
I don't know shit about digital cameras specifically but the supposed default grey flatness of them looks more like a misconversion from high dynamic range data to srgb colour space, rather than a lack of any further colour editing. I'm probably shit off though.
As a graphic design student of 7 years who used to focus on photo manipulation (now I want to deal with print, but w/e not imporant) this is something I've always noticed.
It looks like very little overall post processing was done, or much care was taken to make sure there's any vibrancy and pop added to a [i]comic book movie[/i]. But I assumed that I just noticed this because I have a trained eye for this sorta thing and was being a nitpicky lil shit.
[QUOTE=Primigenes;51391722]I'm happy I wasn't the only who noticed this. The movies look so fucking boring. I need shit like Mad Max with deep oranges and blues.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily those colors, but we need films to utilize complementary colors and such. That's why Fury Road looks so fucking good. Orange and blue can look stunning together, but so can the right shades of blue and yellow, or green and red, etc etc
Good design can be applied to any visual medium (durr), but it seems a lot of movie creators these days forget this. You can have the most perfectly lined up shot with the greatest visual balance of all time, but if your color depth is shit and unfitting, then what's the point
[editline]22nd November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=shozamar;51392432]I feel like there's an argument to be made for the flatter tones in Marvel films based around the fact that their content is generally quite fantastical and so might need a bit of grounding. He pointed out that DC is less flat like that, and given that DC generally seem to be going for gritty and realistic (to very mixed success) they may be doing the same: by compensating and making the colours more vibrant.[/QUOTE]
I see what you're going for, but it doesnt work that way. You want every part to match.
When you got a movie with source mataerial that looks like
[t]https://beyondthebunker.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/lanning2.png[/t]
you really should NOT have a flat lame ass image
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
