I am not religious but this is a film that explores so many themes and it makes you think. What I find stupid is how people rush to see garbage and the best films of the year barely make it through. Hollywood has destroyed cinema and that's a shame.
shareYou're forgetting the possibility, and it is true in my case, that people like both types of movies.
shareThis movie is not that far up from CGI garbage, for starters it has the same orange and teal bullshít digital aesthetic any transformers movie has.
sharefor starters it has the same orange and teal bullshít digital aesthetic any transformers movie has.
NFS: You mentioned the grade earlier. Any takeaways from timing two different formats?
Prieto: I try to approach color in a simple way. In this case, the LUT we wanted had a film look and we used it for everything. Once we did that it didn’t take that much tweaking. We only needed to do a photochemical type of grade, meaning primary color—red, green, blue—and complementary colors. Sometimes we adjusted the contrast, but I don’t like twisting the image around too much. We didn’t want to feel like an effect. We designed the lighting and color grading to give you a sense of the era.
NFS: How did you want to paint the story’s color palette?
Prieto: There’s a progression of color in the film. We were inspired by baroque painters, starting off in cooler tones—blues and cyans—and going towards the green of nature, as it’s an important character to the story. Then we transitioned into a more Japanese feel, if I may. We went with more amber, yellow, and gold hues that would represent the same Japanese screen art during the Edo period.
Batman Vs. Superman was shot on film, it still looks like digital excrement. I can't say what they did or didn't do in this film, all I know it was teal and orange from start to finish, just like a Transformers film, and some muddled green in the middle, with green skin and green hued skies. Also there is no longer daylight anymore, when scenes are shot in midday sun they now look gray, like they did on the Hidden Faces or whatever name that film is, there is a particularly horrific film in that movie were the three women are in an airport tarmac or something, it is 12 pm blazing sun and the picture looks desaturated, gray and dark and looks horrific. Again, digital aesthetic, if you can call it that. Gone are the days were a blazing white sun, as Tennesse Williams would say, was so brilliantly captured and textured, in black and white no less, in 1959's Suddenly, Last Summer and how it was captured in countless amazing color films. Gone is actual color, there are no colors anymore unless they are heavily washed in teal and orange, like this movie was.
Like I said, this movie doesn't rise that much above Transformers. And I've never seen a Transformers film but I see the style contaminating everything, and the actual artistic and intellectual content in Silence was so poor I don't think any Transformers crowd person would have much trouble sitting through this drama lite film.
It is just your poor understanding of what is filmlike, and what is digital, as well as the misconception that visual realism is a worthy goal in itself.
Again, desaturation has nothing to do with digital aesthetic, this stuff was going on long before digital grading came along. Also, modern colour negative is rather low saturation, compared to older film stocks - there is no unified film look in the first place. If you think, that avoiding digital grading automatically results in a bright and colourful look, you should meet Son of Saul and have your dreams crushed.
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Son-of-Saul-Blu-ray/147670/#Screenshots
People should adjust their opinions when confronted with an opportunity to learn, that is, for example to read the interview I posted.
I guess Scorsese would call it: "lack of visual literacy".
I'll leave with you with some El Greco images with prominent blues, greens and teals.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/El_Greco_-_Christ_Carrying_the_Cross_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/El_Greco_-_The_Penitent_Magdalene_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Domenikos_Theotokopoulos%2C_El_Greco_-_The_Annunciation_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/El_GRECO%EF%BC%88Domenikos_Theotokopoulos%EF%BC%89_-_Annunciation_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/El_Greco_%28Domenikos_Theotokopoulos%29_-_Laoco%C3%B6n_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg/1280px-El_Greco_%28Domenikos_Theotokopoulos%29_-_Laoco%C3%B6n_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg
http://c.o0bg.com/rw/Boston/2011-2020/WebGraphics/Arts/BostonGlobe.com/2014/10/19greatestcap/img/greco2.jpg
As for the second half "amber, yellow, and gold hues that would represent the same Japanese screen art during the Edo period" just run a simple Google Image search.
I am an avid reader on all subjects in art and I also went to art school for a degree in photography, you are not schooling me on this.
And that Son film looks like shít.
I am an avid reader on all subjects in art and I also went to art school for a degree in photography,
And that Son film looks like shít.
lol
Marie Antoinette was a completely analog release, one of the last and the image looks flawless. The texture is amazing, the colors are incredible, the whites are whites and the blacks are blacks and every color in between is pure to its spectrum.
Cinematographic Process Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format)
Spherical (source format)
There is also no such thing as a film without digital grading today
The Son film looks 100% digital even if it wasn't,
Digital was never even an option for the Hungarian-born filmmakers. In fact, the director went as far to say that he would stop making movies if he can't shoot on film.
They finished the film photochemically and screened their 35mm print struck from the cut camera negative at the Cannes International Film Festival.
and that Love Witch, the whites look BLUE in that clip, so no that movie does not resemble film even if it was shot on it and developed, thanks to digital color grading.
She insisted on using 35mm for this project and wanted to finish photochemically.
During the answer printing, Biller was a stickler about getting the color right and though she has done this before, I think it was hard for her to be limited to simple RGB printer light corrections — sometimes we and the timer talked about whether a single point correction was going to be too much or not enough to get the color just right.
We are shooting in standard 4-perf 35mm 1.85 on an Arricam ST and plan on a photochemical finish, and then a transfer to digital from a timed IP.
Whatever, an imbecile like you doesn't understand that all the film is digitalized nowadays, so. Munich looks like shít and so does War Of The Worlds, both have Transformers aesthetic, and that's the last thing I'll say to a moron like you.
shareall the film is digitalized nowadays
Munich looks like shít and so does War Of The Worlds, both have Transformers aesthetic
You are an imbecile. A film is developed and then it is color graded for the final print, the color grading is done in digital now and it makes everything look digital, doesn't matter that it was shot on film. And I'm not talking about video I'm talking about what you see ON THE SILVER SCREEN. There is no such thing as a digitally unmanipulated film today. Marie Antoinette was shot on film and what came out is what you see on the screen, as it should be.
I don't give a fúck what he thinks.
The original negatives are scanned and sub sequentially graded digitally. They are working straight from the negative. A movie shot on film but timed digitally should be given the treatment (pretend) of the release format so it looks like it might had it been screened in 35mm (The digital stuff always looks cleaner and more consistent). This is what we are used to. But other movies while shot on film, choose to loose a lot of that detail and, more often than not, appear to embrace digital color characteristics.
It instead looses a lot of detail in the shadow, and for some reason, shows some blown out highlights. I've noticed this in some other movies shot film. Star Wars Episode 7 for instance. Carol (while it's gorgeous, there's a lot of detail lost in it's ultimate presentation -- such as blown out highlights). It's not the teal thing either. Many movies (seen on 35mm on a nice print) have rich blues and teal and other wonderful colors that pop. There's nothing else like it.
Son of Saul looks like film in that the thickness of the image pops and the movement feels like film. But it was scanned to digital and in that there's a great loss of detail. I'm sure it appeared different on the print stock at Cannes (the image will change depending on the kind of print film used, and now all we have is 2383/3383) the image would have looked very different. The film still stands. But it's unfortunate we wouldn't be able to see the film presented in 35mm coming from a source that is the film negative. The people who scanned it didn't do the best job at keeping detail (shadow and highlight detail, where the shadows look like ink and the highlights are blown out).
And some of the filmmakers still timing photochemically have there films scanned after the fact (once it's edited). You'll see the difference. Take a movie like Inherent Vice and Interstellar. If you look in the corners you'll see much more telecine wobble. More than say a film that was scanned beforehand from the original negative.
Silence is a job well done overall as far as digital timing. For the 35mm stuff (the majority of the film) the colors feel natural to 35mm film. But of course a film timed digitally will always look more consistent and clean. Films from Chris Nolan and Paul Thomas Anderson (more recent films) come out with more contrast and with more flicker when they are transferred to digital. See for yourself.
In other words, if a film is timed digitally and completed digitally, and then transferred to film the results won't look so great. But if the film is timed photochemically your working in the film environment all the way -- start to finish. So once it's presented to you in 35mm, you will see the rich colors and everything else that comes from it. It's the other way around if the film is timed photochemically, in that the film suffers a little when scanned and made digital.
The digital stuff looks cleaner?? Define what you mean by cleaner. A film that is scanned digitally doesn't suffer. All that is projected on screens is digital, that is not the issue. The issue is digital color grading and retouching of the film. The problem is digital, period.
share
Son of Saul looks like film in that the thickness of the image pops and the movement feels like film. But it was scanned to digital and in that there's a great loss of detail. I'm sure it appeared different on the print stock at Cannes (the image will change depending on the kind of print film used, and now all we have is 2383/3383) the image would have looked very different. The film still stands. But it's unfortunate we wouldn't be able to see the film presented in 35mm coming from a source that is the film negative. The people who scanned it didn't do the best job at keeping detail (shadow and highlight detail, where the shadows look like ink and the highlights are blown out).
In an unusual inversion of the usual practice, the DI sessions were tasked with creating a digital replication of the timed film.
Having achieved the visual style they wanted in the film print, colourist László Kovács set to recreating this in Baselight. “Even in the DI we tried to keep it so we mainly used primary colour correction,” said Erdély, emphasising the raw nature of the film. “We wanted to limit ourselves to the most essential tools.”
During a week of sessions Kovács created a 4K digital master of the film and a 2K DCP deliverable, which even the film-loving Nemes and Erdély had to admit were a strikingly close match.
We did find that in the photochemical prints, maybe the greens weren’t as saturated as with the digital version, and the deeper blacks came at the expense of some loss of shadow detail
A film is developed and then it is color graded for the final print, the color grading is done in digital now and it makes everything look digital, doesn't matter that it was shot on film. And I'm not talking about video I'm talking about what you see ON THE SILVER SCREEN. There is no such thing as a digitally unmanipulated film today.
Marie Antoinette was shot on film and what came out is what you see on the screen, as it should be.
Jesus christ, are you an imbecile??? Every single film in the last 15 years has been scanned and digitalized in order to be shown in THEATERS which no longer carry film projectors, everything you see is A DIGITAL FILE, however that DOES NOT MEAN the film was digitally processed and color corrected and/or retouched. The first film to do this horror was Oh Brother Were Art Thou. Not ever film after it for a few years did the same, there was still plenty of films that were digitalized as they were shot, which is the CORRECT AND PROPER WAY to do it. Marie Antoinette is certainly one of those films and you can see it on the screen because it doesn't have Transformers aesthetic. Anna Karenina which is a costume drama done many years after Marie Antoinette DOES HAVE the Transformers horrific aesthetic, THAT FILM was obviously digitally manipulated, Marie Antoinette and a few others were NOT.
But that is of the past now, as I said before, every single film since 2006 onwards has been digitally retouched and color graded and inevitably has Transformers aesthetic. It's inevitable.
Every single film you mentioned, beginning with Interstellar is just a textureless MESS of orange and teal. The Love Witch they tried to do something different but the tell tale sign is the whites which in the clip you sent look blue/gray and not real white. It takes a really good eye to notice the blue and gray in the teeth and white clothes because it is minimal but it is there and I can notice it. So you go on in your stupid ass little world were digital works, it's thanks to people LIKE YOU that film and movies are finished.
Please keep in mind that this movie has a super limited release at this time. I live in Canada and it's barely anywhere in the country.
And guess what? There's those of us that enjoy both the commercial and thinking sides of cinema. Shocker!
"DO NOT WRECK THIS GIGANTIC DOOM."
http://astrolupine.tumblr.com