DI Bad habits

[Mr.Row]

I don't know if anyone saw "and starring Pancho Villa as himself" or whatever it was called, Bruce Beresford film. Watching it I was wincing at what had to be a film that was digitally scanned.

 

There is something about these people that work on the digital intermediates that makes them want to manipulate the image to a point that makes the tools use (DI) so obvious. The non manipulated images in the DVD's featurette looked like film and looked fantastic.

 

Contrast manipulations and digital filters make the image look like...well, a digital image. They look like music videos.

 

I've seen the Lustre on a film make a crap film look like an 80 million dollar spectacle, but some people go overboard.

[David Mullen ASC]

The flipside to this argument is: why use a D.I. if you can get the same look with conventional photo-chemical post and traditional RGB print timing?

[David Cox]

As with many areas of post, its a case of "should you do it just because you can".

 

We see it a lot with commercials post production. Young "film makers" from ad agencies constantly fiddling with shots, the only thing being wrong with those shots is that they have been viewed hundreds of times by them, and now they have forgotten what the shot felt like first time round.

 

This is a very good reason why the DOP should consider the DI process an extension of their toolset, rather than something that happens after they are done and have no control over. They are the ones with the overall photographic vision and are in the best position to direct at least the grading process of the DI.

[Guest Kai.w]

There is something about these people that work on the digital intermediates that makes them want to manipulate the image to a point that makes the tools use (DI) so obvious.

 

Contrast manipulations and digital filters make the image look like...well, a digital image.  They look like music videos.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hmm.... could you be a bit more specific?

 

 

The non manipulated images in the DVD's featurette looked like film and looked fantastic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well... I think it also has something to do what people are used to. Anything that looks different to this standard might not appear right.

Personally I'm more or less bored of what traditional "film" looks like...

 

But you are right in that it's easy to lose the balance. At first sight I very much liked the look of "minority report". But after a while, the heavy glows got a bit on my nerves and it distracted too much attention.

But I think with time the audience will get used to more extreme and unusual looks and they won't recognize it that much anymore.

 

What I personally find the most ugly is if I can see power windows somewhere. That's why I tend to prefer i.e. lustre over the realtime stuff. The flexibility allows for higher precision.

 

-k

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I'm forced to point out that the more flexible, Lustre-ish stuff is becoming available in realtime, although current-employership forbids me to name it... for what it's worth I agree with you.

 

Phil

[David Cox]

Lustre-ish stuff is becoming available in realtime

...for those of us that left Discreet back in the early nineties where they belong, realtime proper resolution grading has been with us already for some time :-)

[Guest Kai.w]

...for those of us that left Discreet back in the early nineties where they belong, realtime proper resolution grading has been with us already for some time :-)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, looking at lustres origins, that's quite obvious ;-)

But then what does realtime grading mean? And at which res? With how many secondaries tracked masks, etc.?

I was more comparing to typical realtime hardware based solutions which by their very nature must have a limited toolset.

 

-k

 

btw.: (5D's stuff was great. And yet they failed. So there is some safety in the big names. Whether that's worth the money is another question.)

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

The thing with any kind of computer effects work, grading included, is that there's always going to be a limit to what you can do in realtime. The beauty of software solutions is that if you happen to want to go slightly beyond what it can handle quickly, it's got to be a better bet to spend a few seconds waiting for it to cache than hours transferring it onto some other system. With a Da Vinci, once you hit the end of what it can do, it's a brick wall.

 

Phil

[John Sprung]

What's happening with DI is what happened when zoom lenses were new, and seems to happen for a lot of new things. There's the "gee whiz use it to death" period from which emerges the experience needed to find the more subtle and appropriate path.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Michael Most]

But you are right in that it's easy to lose the balance. At first sight I very much liked the look of "minority report". But after a while, the heavy glows got a bit on my nerves and it distracted too much attention.

 

You are aware that "Minority Report" was not a DI, aren't you? The picture was finished photochemically. The look was achieved through "traditional" processes.

 

Interestingly enough, they did consider a DI finish for Minority Report, but opted to not do it when they were able to get the results they wanted by more traditional means.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Some films are horribly done in DI. Charlie's Angels 2 and most of the Lord of the Rings had some very, very "graded", unnatural and "frazzy" images.

[Guest Kai.w]

You are aware that "Minority Report" was not a DI, aren't you? The picture was finished photochemically. The look was achieved through "traditional" processes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I know. It was more an example of how easy it is to lose balance when working with extreme looks (regardless the method).

 

-k

[K Borowski]

SOT. How did they achieve the look in Minority Report? I never saw it in theatres, but from what I saw on TV, I'd say maybe bleach bipass/push process? Am I right?

 

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

[David Mullen ASC]

SOT.  How did they achieve the look in Minority Report?  I never saw it in theatres, but from what I saw on TV, I'd say maybe bleach bipass/push process?  Am I right?

 

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes. Bleach-bypass process to the negative, some scenes shot on Vision 800T, net diffusion, Super-35 to 35mm anamorphic optical printer blow-up.

[DavidSloan]

Does anyone know what was done on Intolerable Cruelty? That film looked very odd.

[Max Jacoby]

Does anyone know what was done on Intolerable Cruelty?  That film looked very odd.

 

I think EFilm happened to it...

[Ben Schwartz]

I felt that the DI in House of Flying Daggers was overdone. Particularly evident near the end just before the snow falls...the red foliage on the trees looked hideous!

[David Mullen ASC]

Does anyone know what was done on Intolerable Cruelty?  That film looked very odd.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was a basic DI at E-Film, nothing unusual about the look other than the warming up the shadows.

[Sam Wells]

I felt that the DI in House of Flying Daggers was overdone.  Particularly evident near the end just before the snow falls...the red foliage on the trees looked hideous!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Maybe a bit over the top, but the greens in the bamboo forrest are to die for

 

-Sam

[John Sprung]

What about "Ray"? The hyper-saturated flashbacks to his childhood almost looked like video. I'm guessing that this was DI gone a tad bit too far.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[DavidSloan]

It was a basic DI at E-Film, nothing unusual about the look other than the warming up the shadows.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The last American Pie film had the same look. Was that film also done at EFilm? I'm guessing EFilm isn't known for being subtle.

[DavidSloan]

I think EFilm happened to it...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Care to elaborate, mate?

[David Mullen ASC]

I think EFilm are doing some of the best D.I.'s in the business in general; much more "invisible" work than many other places (which is probably why Roger Deakins likes going there). They don't apply noise reduction as liberally as Technique, for example.

 

But as for whether the color-correction is subtle or unsubtle, the people making the artistic decisions on the color-correction are more to blame or to thank.

[DavidSloan]

I just went on the Efilm website and looked at their filmography, and lo and behold they did both American Wedding and Intolerable cruelty! This is too funny. It just casually occured to me, seeing both those films in proximity, that they look exactly the same, and guess what...they were done by the same company. :D

 

I'll give them credit, other stuff they did looks very good like 8 Mile but the "look" of the aforementioned films is disturbing. I remember watching American Wedding with a friend who is a grip and has limited knowledge about cinematography, and he kept saying to me: "this film looks too friggin wierd, people's skin tones have the color of urine, I hate it!" lol :lol:

Edited December 28, 2004 by DavidSloan

[DavidSloan]

 

 

Is it just me, or does it look like they're actually toasting with urine in this pic! :o