Looks amazing except for the Transformers aesthetic
Blue filters, orange filters, washed out gray whites, no detail in the shadows, digital is the death of photography. Other than that, I love it.
shareIt was shot on 35mm
shareNowadays it doesn't matter because all films are scanned and post processed digitally, there's no such thing as a straight from negative film today unfortunately, and this movie has all the characteristics of the digital look, excessively dark, darkness were you can't see anything, unrealistic color and so on.
shareThat's just part of the Southern Gothic color palette. Looks gorgeous to me.
shareYou don't know what I'm talking about I guess. I'm a photographer so I check for these things.
shareAnd I work in film, so I know exactly what you mean, but those elements fit this particular aesthetic perfectly.
shareNo they don't, movies set in the south have been done for ages and they don't have technical problems. This is technical problems, deficiencies in the image as a result of trying to eliminate all grain because grain is now a sin. Horrible colors, no texture, it's impossible to see people's skin pores now in film, it looks like shít. I saw Assasin's Creed a few weeks ago and not only did all the dark areas in the screen looked blue, but there was no definition in the shadows, and since the actual lights were so dark and desaturated, well you could barely see anything on the screen. I don't know what do you do for a living, but stop excusing this, films have looked terrible for at least a decade and there is no such thing as texture and realistic color in film anymore, no such thing.
The funny thing is that, all those fake digital colors don't add any mood to anything.
I'm looking forward to this film but I don't delude myself, the photography looks terrible.
No they don't, movies set in the south have been done for ages and they don't have technical problems.
When Gone with the Wind first came out it featured quite heavy sepia filter. It hasn't been imitated on any home video releases but that doesn't change the fact.
And The Wizard of Oz was desaturated pastel. Again, never seen like that on home video.
http://i.imgur.com/v0N5hew.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/mliGb4y.jpg
You "natural colours" you obsess about have rarely existed in cinema, right from the beginning of the colour cinematography.
Here's a very early 3-strip test from 1932 - as you can see it's rather cyan.
http://i.imgur.com/xPbOtfv.jpg
This is technical problems, deficiencies in the image as a result of trying to eliminate all grain because grain is now a sin.
You do realise that Vision3 is very low granularity? Even 500T is much less grainy then the 100T stock the original version of this film was shot on back in the early 70s.
but there was no definition in the shadows
The general complaint, if anything, is that modern stocks and digital cameras have too much shadow detail. With older stocks contrast was higher and blacks were more solid.
------------
www.ipetitions.com/petition/petition-to-keep-the-imdb-messageboards-going
share
Your posts always come to what they are, bullshít. The two links you posted, those are damaged, degraded negatives, the original films NEVER looked like that. The third link you posted was early three strip, which gave unnatural color from the beginning, plus it is degraded and aged too hence why it looks so cyan, none of the three are worthy exhibits for discussion of color in film.
At the end of the day you suffer the same trope of every digital aficionado, all you can do is come up with lies, half-truths and distortions.
And there is no shadow detail with digital. Literally zero. This film is proof of it, Assasin's Creed is too, and so many others.