Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
You may do an internet and/or forum search if you don’t get a reply, your question has been asked and answered quite often
He will use it when it serves the story, not for effect. From the interviews I’ve seen he works very closely with the art department.
Typically show LUTs are meticulously built upon test footage so that they don’t break and work for a range of scenarios, so that decisions on set can be made under the intended, final look (in camera). Changing that look in post can mean messing with those decisions (e.g. exposure). So usually in post you would grade under the LUT (or the power grades it was rendered from).
But there’s no rule. Ultimately the colourist needs to work towards the vision of the DP and/or director.
Here’s a great interview about show LUTs and their use with Jill Bogdanovic, colorist of ‘Joker’, ‘Grand Budapest Hotel’ and others.
I started with documentary and that taught me to operate on instincts. I believe Roger did lots of documentary early on, his instinct for putting the audience where it needs to be is second to none in my opinion. The shot above is no exception.
Few years ago I shot some Kodak Tri-X 400 and developed it in coffee.
I think it was called Caffenol, made from ingredients that can be found in the kitchen, with instant coffee being the main one.Then I left the films in the developer tanks for 3 days, bathing in very saturated salt water – that functioned as a natural fixer. And what can I say, it worked!
I never did it again though as the results, as interesting and at times powerful as they were – were not worth the work.
But I still like Kodak Tri-X.
Budget film LEDs have come a long way in terms of quality of light in the past 10 years. There are many brands who all produce great lights. Built quality, functionality and service are the main differences today to more expensive brands.
Yes the advantage of a physical filter is that you see their effect while shooting and may adjust lights ect accordingly. It might also be more fun 🙂
I didn’t want to talk you out of trying things the way you want to!
Using post-diffusion does not mean that you make the decision in post. Usually you do tests before shooting and decide on what you are going for then.
But of course you can use physical filters if that is what you want.
I personally would advise against physical filters. You cannot undo the effect. Luckily, filter diffusion is the one thing that actually makes sense to do in post imo. There is a plugin that emulates all popular diffusion and haze filters called Scatter from Video Village. It’s visually indistinguishable and you have infinitely more control than with physical filters. I think they have a demo version you can try.
I’m not Roger, but I just can’t hold back on this topic; in my opinion HDR does more harm than good aesthetically, especially on films. There certainly are people that enjoy it but I think the demand for HDR was created by the industry first, not the audience, just like with 4K or 3D TV’s.
Look at a 9 light or 12 light Maxi Brute. If you hold your hand close the lamp you see every shadow, though perhaps you should do this with an equivalent multiple bulb LED if you value your hand.
:))
Not David but in my opinion one example would be a “gritty” story.
I’m preparing a dark mystery-thriller and intend to use grain, the soundtrack uses lots of grainy, gritty, granular sound elements as well.
I think the balance is delicate and I prefer the grain to be “felt” rather than seen.
Personally I think the “Dune” pipeline was a bit of a gimmick. I’d guess general audience hardly got anything from it (if at all) that couldn’t have been achieved much simpler and cheaper.
I’m always interested in the effort/benefit ratio and for me personally this didn’t pass it. Then again, that was a very big production, with top notch people, and they get to levels of quality where I’d imagine such details matter more.
