Stranger Things (Netflix series)

[Giray Izcan]

Good question indeed haha. I am pretty sure they are on the opposite side of the color wheel.

[David Mullen ASC]

My point is, Super 35mm has plenty of resolution for a 4k deliverable. In the case of this particular show, they most likely did a completely standard 4096 × 2160 finish with matte lines at the top and bottom, shrinking the image to less than a typical 4096 × 2160 deliverable.

 

 

Only vertically, it's still 4K. "4K" is a horizontal measurement, it does not specify a vertical one -- after all, a 4K DCP of a scope movie is 4096 × 1716.

 

You're basically suggesting that 4K has to have a 1.89 : 1 aspect ratio to be "4K", which is not true. 1.89 : 1 isn't even a typical display format!

[Tyler Purcell]

I'm curious how the RED steers towards both magenta and green.

The magenta issue is related to midtones, especially when underexposed slightly. With proper/perfect exposure in bright situations, it's not as noticeable.

 

The green issue has to do with blacks. It's noticeable with dark scenes. The colorist will generally turn that tint into blue. In doing so, it alters the over-all look, it strips a lot of the warmth from the image.

[Tyler Purcell]

Sigh. C'mon man, not this again! Why do you insist on crapping all over highly skilled artists and craftspeople in other departments? Have you ever done studio-level VFX work? It's all difficult at that level.

 

It's fine to have an opinion about the work - like it, don't like it, fine. But please stop saying things like 'it's not that difficult' as if you know better. Because you're wrong about that.

I'm not crapping on anyone. You just assume I'm some wild idiot going around spewing poop, but this is far from the truth. I didn't feel it necessary to explain where my opinion was founded, but I guess since you don't understand, I will do just that. I know quite a bit about visual effects as many of my close industry friends are in that industry. I have learned quite a bit from them and talk "shop" whenever I can.

 

When I say something is "easy" I'm looking at many variables from pre-production cost, to location issues, to post production cost, client approval delays and money issues. I will discuss each of these in more detail below.

 

Why I'm such an advocate for in-camera, really comes from spending so much time in an edit bay with clients tweaking projects until hours before they're released. Yes... the network TV shows I've worked on, have been tweaked hours before broadcast. Some of the commercials and trailer/promo's I've worked on, were delivered minutes before air. My roommate was a VFX/color producer for a decade, working on Micheal Bay shows like 'The Rock' and 'Bad Boys II'. The yarns he spins about those movies will make you never want to work in the VFX industry. We've had MANY conversations over dinner with his VFX buddies, shooting the poop about the past and the differences between practical and CG. Plus, my real money comes from support the post production industry, including VFX houses. So I've spent a considerable amount of time learning how things roll today.

 

With in-camera physical effects, the producers/client and filmmakers are on the same page prior to production commencing. This gives ample time for the practical effects house to prep and test prior to showing up on set. Most of the time a small 2nd unit will work on the visual effects shots, using stand-in's or stunt doubles of key cast members, sometimes whilst the 1st/main unit is shooting. This means there is a high efficiency level on set and when everything shows up to the editor, selects have been approved by the filmmakers and in a lot of cases, the producers as well. Thus, post production is more normal, consisting of editing, sound design/mixing and coloring prior to release.

 

Computer effects shows still do all the same client approval up front. They still have a 2nd unit shoot the plates. They still have all the same work flow through post. The difference is, once the practical effects company has wrapped, the CG VFX house continues until the show is finalized, sometimes days prior to distribution. This is for many reasons, the biggest is their ability to make changes. So the client sees a first draft of the show and the make notes, but since they CAN adjust the effects shots considerably, since they are done in computer, there is far more unnecessary "tweaking" going on. This places an undue burden on the VFX houses and it drags down their efficiency substantially. A lot of effects houses can't bill for those overages because they bid flat-rates on the job. The industry right now pays between net 90 and net 120 to visual effects houses. So you're cutting checks for a full VFX crew to basically do "fixes" to a project which was already approved before production started.

 

So in my opinion, modern VFX houses have a more difficult job then the practical effects guys. Practical guys come on, they get their job done and are usually gone when production wraps. Where CG guys are on for much longer, wasting time making unnecessary tweaks. So this is why I personally consider in-camera effects like the one's in this particular show to be "not that difficult" because I'm comparing/contrasting to the CG option, which is far more challenging. Yes I know, practical effects guys re-do things all the time, but spending a day or two on a set with a small crew, has very little in common with months of work in a dark room with a bunch of CG artists, for minor tweaks.

 

Funny enough, it does appear 'Stranger Things' did have a huge practical crew. So perhaps my theory is accurate, perhaps they did everything in-camera and didn't like it OR augmented with CG. All I know is the CG monster didn't look good and it spoiled the show in my opinion. Again... as I said earlier, this is only my opinion and I have a right to it without being told off.

[Robin R Probyn]

"You just assume I'm some wild idiot going around spewing poop".. assume ?

[Robin R Probyn]

Ive shot for Netflix with an F5 .. internal 4K.. as in 4096... thats all it refers to..

[Stuart Brereton]

The magenta issue is related to midtones, especially when underexposed slightly. With proper/perfect exposure in bright situations, it's not as noticeable.

 

The green issue has to do with blacks. It's noticeable with dark scenes. The colorist will generally turn that tint into blue. In doing so, it alters the over-all look, it strips a lot of the warmth from the image.

I've shot 12 features with RED cameras, starting with the RED One back in 2008, and I've never seen what you are describing. The colors in the early builds (pre build 20) were sometimes a little funky, but by the time the Epic was released, they were largely ok.

[Manu Delpech]

Ouch.

[Tyler Purcell]

I've shot 12 features with RED cameras, starting with the RED One back in 2008, and I've never seen what you are describing. The colors in the early builds (pre build 20) were sometimes a little funky, but by the time the Epic was released, they were largely ok.

Well, the issue is there. There are dozens of youtube videos about it, everyone I know who owns a RED has told me about it and I have literally spent months of my life correcting for it on various RED cine projects.

 

I only have very limited experience shooting with the Red ONE, Epic and Dragon cameras, on various shoots. I also haven't colored much of what I've shot with the camera, so I can't really put the puzzle together based on shooting.

 

What I do know is the OLPF does help with the magenta issue, but nothing yet has helped with the greens on the mid's and blacks out of camera. That's just something you have to color out in post, which means RED material takes a bit longer to color then Alexa or even Blackmagic. I have yet to build a "green fix" LUT for RED cameras because sometimes the green tint is so heavy (especially in dark scenes), that it requires the colorist to pay more attention, then simply taking the low color wheel and turning it more to blue or red, depending on the look your seeking.

 

If you really think these issues don't exist, I would be happy to post stills of RED Epic and Dragon material clearly displaying these issues, shot by top cinematographer and ASC member. I will also show how much correction was necessary to remove the issue.

[Stuart Brereton]

If you really think these issues don't exist, I would be happy to post stills of RED Epic and Dragon material clearly displaying these issues, shot by top cinematographer and ASC member. I will also show how much correction was necessary to remove the issue.

I said I had never encountered the problem, not that it didn't exist. If you have stills, by all means post them.

[Giray Izcan]

Tyler, I'm not a fan of RED cameras myself for some reasons, but still don't agree with you. It seems like you like to go against the grain, which is getting pretty old. All of your statements regarding everything - not just this particular topic - is pretty annoying. No one seems to be up to your standards. You keep ragging on pretty established people, but yet, have nothing to show for yourself. Know-it-all attitude is wearing really thin, I mean incredibly thin. I still can't figure out what your expertise is, directing, cinematography, camera technician, editor, color timer... What is it? Do you ever hear yourself talk? One note, you label commercial cinematographers as fashion cinematographers or whatever you said. Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. I, personally, worked with Robert Elswitt and Van Hoytema that I can remember not too long ago. Are they just some 'fashion cinematographers' also? I don't know man... You should probably get a grip though, honestly.

Edited July 31, 2016 by Giray Izcan

[Tyler Purcell]

It seems like you like to go against the grain, which is getting pretty old. All of your statements regarding everything - not just this particular topic - is pretty annoying.

It's unfortunate you find the flip side of the coin "annoying", especially if nobody else is talking about it. I generally and purposely bring up the flip side in conversations because it makes people think. A world where everyone does the same thing and agrees with one another, is not realistic at all. It's just, most people keep their mouths shut and that doesn't lend to any learning.

 

No one seems to be up to your standards.

Not true at all, I simply don't believe in praising people for doing THEIR JOB. If you're paid to do a job and you do it properly, that's what you got paid for. If you're paid to do a job and you screw it up, then there is call for a conversation, even if it's an opinionated one along the subject of "what could have been".

 

When I'm on set shooting for someone else, the director rarely gives feedback if the job is done right. If it's not done the way they wish, they will comment to make a change instantly. When I'm sitting in the editing room, the director rarely discusses the good shots or takes, he only discusses the shitty ones and how we can "fix" the mistakes. When I'm coloring or even doing post audio work, nobody ever says "great job, that's amazing", they only pick on the stuff that went wrong. This is the nature of working in the broadcast/film industry. Even if you're right, even if you've just done the best work of your life, all it means is you've done the job someone paid you for AND you've met their expectations.

 

You keep ragging on pretty established people, but yet, have nothing to show for yourself.

Putting "established" people on a un-touchable pedestal, is unhealthy. In the long run, everyone is human and you have to treat them as equals. It's natural and in my opinion, very important to discuss the mistakes. This is how we collectively learn about what we like and what we don't like. I, like many people, express what I personally see is right and/or wrong. It's HEALTHY to do this, it's a way to put thoughts on paper and see if any of them stick in a public environment with random people. If I simply discussed my opinions with friends, that wouldn't be doing anything for anyone. My friends are likeminded, so they most of the time agree with my comments. It's only when you hear the flip side of the coin, that you really learn what is right and wrong, hence the reason I post what people could consider semi-controversial stuff.

 

Know-it-all attitude is wearing really thin, I mean incredibly thin.

I don't know much, but I'm the first to admit that. I'm a jack of all trades because I enjoy a varied lifestyle. I also enjoy constantly learning new things, it keeps me busy and excited for the future. Being able to write, produce, direct, shoot, edit, sound mix and color your own work, to a professional level, is the challenge I've accepted and I work towards making success of that on a regular basis. Where it's true my money comes from shooting and editing/post production, my heart is telling stories.

 

Do you ever hear yourself talk? One note, you label commercial cinematographers as fashion cinematographers or whatever you said. Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. I, personally, worked with Robert Elswitt and Van Hoytema that I can remember not too long ago. Are they just some 'fashion cinematographers' also? I don't know man... You should probably get a grip though, honestly.

Why do you feel it's in your best interest to pick on me? I've been shooting on film for 30 years and have been working in the industry for 25.

[Giray Izcan]

I don't mean to pick on you. I do believe you mean well. You do try to be helpful to people, but, still don't agree with your way of verbalizing things sometimes, that's all. I apologize if I offended you in any way.

[Gregg MacPherson]

Giray, tried to message you but your available storage is full. Only way is to throw some out, or PM me your email.

Cheers,

Gregg

[Michael LaVoie]

I agree with many of the previous comments about the derivative nature of the show. It’s one of those kitchen sink type productions where you’ve seen nearly everything in a prior show or film. Even the chapter-heading font from Tarantino films. It does look fantastic, almost to a fault.

 

The soundtrack and Tangerine Dream style score is definitely walking a fine line for me though. Either the show is “aware of itself” or not. Seems like it’s trying to be both sincere and cult and if you go for both, you’ll fail at both. Twin Peaks definitely went for cult and got there by being relentlessly weird and offbeat. I may not make it through the whole show but I definitely admire the effort for sure.

[Mitch Gross]

Getting back on topic, I rather enjoyed the series. It started off a little stiff for me, but by around episode three or so I was drawn in. I knew it had the group of kids and I was afraid that was going to wear on me, but the teenage story and the adults' story gave it a much needed sense of balance. It was three movie tropes in one: childhood fantasy, teen horror and adult conspiracy thriller. Interesting balance weaving the three together. I found the sheriff's story particularly compelling.

 

I was fine with the use of the RED camera, although there were a couple of moments with the flashlights where a highlight like a flashlight said electronic instead of chemical to me. And there was the use of fog filters or some other low contrast filter that would cause a distracting change in overall contrast when a flashlight was waved around on screen. But those are just some minor points in what I found to be a very well done production. The Art Department did a great job.

[Jaan Kristjan Utno]

I for one loved the series.

 

I don't even expect the series to have a soft hint - it isn't meant to be soft from the get-go and I think going chemical would have had a different effect.

I'm not even mad about the RED, as the slight contrast it has itself is great, and they got a good set of lenses to shoot with it as well - crispy was the way to go for them and they nailed that aspect of it. The sharpness was refreshing for a period piece, I wouldn't have gone through with filmstock for the sole reason of the visually weaker CGI - it would have looked even worse trying to weld it into 4k scans, as they were not on point with grain rendered in post.

 

I fell in love with the color palette - I moved around a lot, but I lived in a fairly foresty area of North Carolina as a child, and the November they portrayed gave me nostalgic feels - the cold dreary emptiness was fantastic.

 

The stories were great, and the ending was designed in a wonderful way to open up to a sequential season, which, to my knowledge, had been green-lit, if not already in production. I just hope they don't get too crazy about their success and lose sight of the story and the elements that make this show theirs.

 

What I honestly didn't like about the CGI was the seemingly lack of professionalism or budget/effort (I'm not sure what to blame this on, as I have little to no clue about actual VFX workflow, so pardon me).

The monster looked great far away and unrevealed. The moment we see the head and the widening of it, it is superfluid and an immediate CGI red-flag for me. Every scene with the monster took me out of the experience. I did enjoy the ashen atmosphere of the alternate dimension, and the particles flying around.

 

Considering what has already been done, I look forward to a new season exploring their world further.

[Juha Mattila]

I don't like watching a show, that I'm clearly suposed to admire

 

This remind me of Manny Farbers essay "Hard-Sell Cinema" -57. It is a great essay where Fabers analyses rise of the filmmakers who uses style for creating pseudo artistic impressions aiming to impose their brilliance to audience.

[KH Martin]

 

This remind me of Manny Farbers essay "Hard-Sell Cinema" -57. It is a great essay where Fabers analyses rise of the filmmakers who uses style for creating pseudo artistic impressions aiming to impose their brilliance to audience.

So you don't think they were just using a comfortable visual language that for the most part also hearkens back to the period? That they're more DePalma-esque?

[Juha Mattila]

So you don't think they were just using a comfortable visual language that for the most part also hearkens back to the period? That they're more DePalma-esque?

Yes, you are right. I did't mean that this show uses "pseudo artistic" style. That was only about the essay. I think they are using this conventional style in same purpose for creating these whoa! effects. Main purpose is not to create comprehensive artwork but to gain admiration.

[Manu Delpech]

I for one loved the series.

 

I don't even expect the series to have a soft hint - it isn't meant to be soft from the get-go and I think going chemical would have had a different effect.

I'm not even mad about the RED, as the slight contrast it has itself is great, and they got a good set of lenses to shoot with it as well - crispy was the way to go for them and they nailed that aspect of it. The sharpness was refreshing for a period piece, I wouldn't have gone through with filmstock for the sole reason of the visually weaker CGI - it would have looked even worse trying to weld it into 4k scans, as they were not on point with grain rendered in post.

 

I fell in love with the color palette - I moved around a lot, but I lived in a fairly foresty area of North Carolina as a child, and the November they portrayed gave me nostalgic feels - the cold dreary emptiness was fantastic.

 

The stories were great, and the ending was designed in a wonderful way to open up to a sequential season, which, to my knowledge, had been green-lit, if not already in production. I just hope they don't get too crazy about their success and lose sight of the story and the elements that make this show theirs.

 

What I honestly didn't like about the CGI was the seemingly lack of professionalism or budget/effort (I'm not sure what to blame this on, as I have little to no clue about actual VFX workflow, so pardon me).

The monster looked great far away and unrevealed. The moment we see the head and the widening of it, it is superfluid and an immediate CGI red-flag for me. Every scene with the monster took me out of the experience. I did enjoy the ashen atmosphere of the alternate dimension, and the particles flying around.

 

Considering what has already been done, I look forward to a new season exploring their world further.

 

:-) The head of the monster is practical, it's not CG. They used a guy in a suit for most of it, but for some shots, they had to go CG because the guy couldn't do what was required movement wise. I remember the Duffer bros saying they had to deliver the episodes and that the VFX guys were working as fast as possible to get it done, so that might explain the couple of off shots, but to be honest, imo, there are like two or three CG shots that stand out as slightly iffy. The monster looks terrific up close in its very last scene (so does the rest of the VFX work, ie Upside Down)

Edited September 20, 2016 by Manu Delpech