Why is color timing so hard in movies? Seems like every singe release alters the colors in some way. same goes for modern movies too like the Matrix
 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
|
Why is color timing so hard in movies? Seems like every singe release alters the colors in some way.
they love to rewrite our past
OUR history.
the green tint for parts that happen inside Matrix is a good choice, meanwhile all that happens outside it could had no tint at all or a bit of blue, to put emphasis of how shitty real life is and that you could be having a nice steak everyday inside the Matrix.
It's a good choice, but that's not how the movie was filmed, and the green rereleases ruin the picture quality
Its meant to have a purple tint though
Carrie-Anne is so tiny that an 84FS looks like a 92FS.
that happens with most women.
i thought my dick was regular, then a girl gave me a handjob and realized that i could had done porn.
Jfc
>Do you think that's the original grade you're seeing now?
I hate the latest 4K grading.
Yeah I hate that it looks like rather than just using a pre-greened version, they tried to take the greened version and slightly de-green it which looks like shit.
They changed the way it looks within the Matrix in the sequels and went back to make the original match and they've been fricking with it since.
Yeah, the first Matrix was Pre-Digital intermediate so doing that kind of colour timing for the release print probably wasn't gonna happen.
I don't think it's impossible but much easier once they started doing DI on the sequels.
for blu-ray they pass the footage through a gorillion filters to remove the film grain and that makes them look like shit
Color timing isn't hard, it's simply an aesthetic choice which is different in every period.
Same exact thing with music remastering, the level of compression, dynamics, panning, EQ, distortion etc depends on what the market wants at that exact point in time.
Collector bait
Almost no two theatrical film prints of any given movie shot on film look exactly the same. Film fades and shifts color with time, there's different generations of prints, some are dupes, some are dupes of dupes of dupes and so forth (mainly to preserve the negative, you don't want to strike too many copies directly from the source), and of course each dupe and generation affects the colors, there's the issue of which film stock is used for theatrical prints since that also affects color (they are entirely different from negative film stocks)
And all this affects contrast as well. Theatrical shows certainly got a billion times more consistent with digital projectors.
What is someone who knows about film doing here! Anyways good post
So the only way to know the “real” color is to look at the original cels or in movie cases someone who saw the originally movie with the own eyes? Even that could be biased because he could remember it differently
>So the only way to know the “real” color is to look at the original cels
Not always. While most of the colour compensation was done in-camera with gels and lens filters, they surely did some timing in post-production, overlaying more filters on top of the original negative. So, the best ways to know original theatrical release colours would be either the first reference print they obtained from production, or a certified first generation theatrical print, and of course the word of the original DP and colourist.
And about those awful Disney Blu-rays:
I went to a seminar by an old bloke that worked for both Warner and Disney animation departments.
He said that they always strived for the less coloured, finer grain film stock available at the moment, and tried their best to time for a neutral white balance. That way you could see the closest looking colours that the inkers and animators used.
Then, in these cases, they should look at the original animation cells and account for age fade, then you have the original colours on full glory.
And of course there's the thing about home video releases.
When VHS and other tape formats, distributiors accounted for the green/yellowish tint emitted from early consumer CRT's, making the footage more magenta so it looked kind of right when viewed on those. This correction went well into the 90's up until the turn of the century with disc formats, when television technology advanced enough as to not rely on the coloured light diodes on TVs.
Naturally people grew up on those versions with weird magenta shifts and accepted them as the original colours.
Then, of course, you got the new generation of 'cinematographers' that grew up on cheap point and shoots, bad prints, Instagram filters, and the aforementioned home editions of movies. These little motherfrickers mistake stylistic choices with drowsing everything in a single hue of green, blue or yellow because 'that's how film looks'. Nowadays they try to replicate the 'analog' qualities with digital cameras that have a gorillion pixels and ultra sharp lenses, only to add fake grain that looks like digital noise and halation that makes everything blurry. These frickers don't understand that the same 'vintage' qualities they yearn for is what the actual industry fought against with intentions to have the 'perfect' image. And how could I forget the 'we'll fix it in post' craze that came with digital workflows.
Worst thing is, this doesn't only affect newcomers, old directors and photographers like Ridley Scott, Roger Deakins and David Fincher also got sick with the digital colour fever, and that's why their recent movies look the way they do.
>and halation that makes everything blurry.
There are few things I hate as much in movies as digital fake halation. Not a huge fan of it on film either, as it pulls way too much attention to itself. Always preferred shooting still photos on stocks that don't have much of it at all.
Adding a bit of noise genuinely makes things look better sometimes.
For me it's the blu ray of the LOTR trilogy where everything is way too blue for no reason. People say it's just artistic interpretation but the guy who did the Lord of The Rings' first HD color grading was fricking moronic.
Its what sets sit coms and movies apart
I meant to say gay porn, btw
Japan does it better
Pardon my plebness, but what's the movie on the bottom?
Ring
The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies
Thanks for the sensible chuckle.
i wouldnt notice these things things if they werent pointed out
I think recognizing the green filter in The Matrix was a real normalgay thing, people just forgot that the original screening didn't look like that.
Soul soul soulless
The joke back in the day was that NTSC stands for Never The Same Color. Grading tapes for broadcast or dvds before digital was hard.
I worked with NTSC signals once on an old VX tape machine and it sucked
It made sense back in the days of VHS and DVD but nowadays they can easily search online and see what the proper coloration is supposed to look like.
Combination of:
. Film fading over time and thus requiring digital restoration to bring back the image
+
. Prints of the negative altering the the colour and contrast balance
If you're releasing a movie on home video that was shot on film, you're going back to either the original negative or the master print; neither of which were ever seen by the public. What you saw projected on film in the cinema was a copy of a copy and was subject to colour and contrast shifts that simply aren't there in the negative or master print all other copies were created from.
You like TealNOrange?
You like YellowBrownTints?
I am sure you love Instagram Do you?
Then SHUT UP AND BUY THE THING.
To be fair that 35mm acan is faded as shit, from which year it was?
Is blue ray of fantasia really that bad?
Yeah it’s clean with no grain otherwise
Don’t look up sword and the stone
Competency crisis. Everyone with color timing skills is dying off.
Well yeah, literally no one color times film anymore. Except maybe Nolan? Pretty much everyone else moved on to grading years ago.
What I meant was that the skill goes beyond working with film, it involves understanding color densities, how much certain colors can be pushed, etc. It's why Roger Deakins could make in kino in film and with digital intermediators. It's about developing the eye.
What’s the difference between timing and grading
Color timing is the chemical process which is used for actual film.
Color grading is the digital process.
Cool thanks bud
color theory is gay as frick.
The VHS was limited by SRGB and the Bluray does Bt.2020 (50% more colors). The scan is just a more accurate version of the VHS SRGB.
They also poorly removed the film grain from the source and loss details. Bluray master engineers hate film grain for some reason.
>Bluray does Bt.2020
Only the UHD Blu-Ray spec.
The spec for regular Blu-Rays only supports rec.709
https://filmmakermagazine.com/117844-color-correction-styles-film-restorations/
How many times do we have to have the same thread?
I'll give it to you in general terms. When you're working a career sometimes you get new management. They'll change things simply to make it look like they're doing something. Because if the department is good BUT they change nothing they'll get fired. That's what's going on here.
>35mm scan
I had the tape for fantasia and it did not look like it was broadcast over a lit torch in a cave like this image suggests.
Are you me
Possibly.
Films colour timed chemically/optically and released before digital intermediates are a crapshoot, no "Real Grade" or look exists for those. Not to mention all the colour shifting that needs to happen for a VHS transfer.
The most glaring issues happen with early DI films like Lord of the Rings (fellowship particuarly) where going back to re-scan the negative for new 4k releases makes the extensive DI grading (done on the original 2k scans) completely irrelevant.
Even if they still had the grading files available, things like the colour space of the new scans would be different enough that nothing would look right with the "better" sources. VFX work also often has colour changes "baked in" so it's a real mess to assemble.
As a result they then have to get some intern to redo all the work that the "master colorist" did for the original release with none of the budget, time or expertise.
Yup. That's why the "4K" version of LotR wasn't even an actual rescan. They just took the old scan/master, upscaled it, and color balanced it differently. Many of the shots in the 4K release are actually less detailed than those in the old Blu-Rays, because Hackson went too far with the DNR when supervising the 4K version..
Yeah, the DNR is tragic on those. But I remember not hating the HDR grading work that they did. Maybe I was just so tired of seeing those garbage extended blurays.
Grading for HDR is pretty much a different beast entirely so it kinda inevitably will look different.
The grain on those old scans was probably really evident when they pushed that old source material into the HDR space.
But yeah talking about a true 4k "remaster/rescan" film like that is pure fantasy.
All the VFX heavy films from that era will never have a true 4k remaster because all the vfx shots (which make up a lot of the total shots) are locked at 2k.
Maybe with better true AI upscaling we'll get there.
>DoVi Dark is le filmmakers VISION!
>Dark as frick
>DoVi bright and IQ looks way better
are you actually moronic