Too much digital grading ? (1 Viewer)

[Adam Lenhardt]

It's also limits the resolution of the final product. It's hard to say which aspect is more of the problem since the projection quality has gone into the toilet since Regal took over, but the LOTR movies always looked noticably worse in theaters than other movies, but fantastic on DVD. The LOTR "look" has become more and more prevelant ever since.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Why? The Man Who Wasn't There had its color much more drastically modified in post than FOTR, so if that's a negative consideration, Deakins loses by a mile. Between The Man Who Wasn't There and O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Deakins is clearly no stranger to digital color grading.

DJ

 

[Anthony Neilson]

A slightly more hostile tone to these reactions than I'd anticipated but never mind.

David, I'm sorry I touched a nerve there about MOULIN ROUGE. All I'd say is this : watch Gene Kelly in SINGIN' IN THE RAIN. Count the edits. Why so few ? Because Gene Kelly could dance.
Longer shots would, generally, be cheaper, yes. Unless, of course, you were filming people who COULDN'T DANCE. In which case it would take days.
We're not going to agree on this one. Frankly, to me, Baz Luhrmann is pretty much the poster-boy for over-use of everything. Sorry.

Day for night shots were not ever, by and large, done because of the limitations of stock. They were - and are - done for budgetary reasons.

More comparisons. Take a look at the battle scenes in Bondarchuk's WAR AND PEACE. Now look at the battle scenes in LOTR. Tell me you can't see the difference.
Of course, a director will use digital replication instead of altering the scene. This is not "their" decision - it's a budgetary restriction. Most directors would prefer the real people but not many of them are stupid enough to even bother considering it.

Don't understand the floodlit comments. Perhaps you think I'm arguing against the OVERuse of digital grading because it's not realistic. I certainly don't like it in films that are, in all other ways, attempting to be "realistic" but, as I said, Jeunet uses it well and his films are far from realistic.

I'd agree with you that my point about preserving old skills is idealistic. I guess you also feel that if an old movie isn't liked by enough people to make it profitable we might as well burn the negative and stop using up valuable space that could be better used for MOULIN ROUGE out-takes - actors falling over, that sort of thing. Time moves on, right ? I should stop gnashing my teeth about it ( or discussing it, which is the term I prefer).

Still, I'm glad you agree with me that digital colour timing IS overused.

 

[Michael Reuben]

That may be one reason, but another is certainly that cameras were bigger, heavier, less mobile, and there was no such thing as a steadicam. It was simply impossible (or at best impractical) to do anything but long, sustained takes.

Since Luhrmann and Moulin Rouge are anathema to you , let's try a different example: Chicago. The director was a bona fide choreographer (I've seen his work on Broadway -- the man knows his stuff), he made all the actors learn the dance moves, and he has repeatedly said that several of them could have danced professionally (and Zeta-Jones already had). But the editing of those dance sequences is a lot closer to Moulin Rouge than to Singin' in the Rain. One could debate the reasons for the choice, and its wisdom, but I think it has a lot more to do with the way film has evolved as a medium than with any loss of "skills" on the part of the industry.

M.

 

[David Forbes]

Amen to what Michael said. You may not like Luhrmann, but that certainly doesn't invalidate his choices as an artist. I don't think I was being hostile, I just thought (and still do think) that you're examples are poor. I've seen SINGING IN THE RAIN. It's dancing is totally different in character, tone, and intent to what's in MOULIN ROUGE. Yes, Gene Kelly was one of the greatest dancers who ever lived. He's also dead, and therefore unavailable for further acting gigs. Lurhmann was obviously going for something different, but your argument seems to boil down to, "it's not SINGING IN THE RAIN, therefore it stinks."

And what does this have to do with digital grading anyway?



Not in the least, and I never even implied such a thing. You are confusing the result of a craft with the practice of it. I think pretty much everything should be preserved for anyone in the future who wants to see/study it. That doesn't mean we need to keep around people who know how to make everything that's being preserved.

 

[Anthony Neilson]

You both make good points but ultimately this does come down to aesthetics. Personally, I believe that an edit is a very powerful thing. The more you cut, the more it diminishes the power of each edit.

The effect of this is actually seen more readily in action movies. How many thrillers have you seen recently with incoherent chases and fight scenes, where you have no idea who's doing what to whom and where ? Well, I'm sorry, I just don't agree that this is the evolution of the form - it's a regression, imo. It's the result of two things : a) directors who don't have the necessary skill and b) a misguided imposition by studio heads who believe that fast editing in itself makes for a film more appealing to the all important youth market.

Michael - I find it pretty hard to swallow your theory that it's down to cumbersome equipment. Shooting schedules were far more leisurely in those days than they are now. You could shoot as much material as you wanted and make as many edits as you wanted. The number of edits was not affected by the camera equipment. PSYCHO was made in 1960, after all - the shower scene being an instance of fast editing used to superb effect. If Baz Luhrmann had made it, the whole film would've been cut like that.

Oh, and CHICAGO stank as well. Sorry, I just thought it was bad. The fact that the director knew better doesn't make it any less so.

David - no, it doesn't have much to do with digital grading. It's an extension of the argument that vital skills are being lost due to the encroachment of technology that is cheaper but not (yet) its match. It's a digression to be sure, but this is a discussion, and they digress, right ?

Your last point is well taken though. That was perhaps a digression too far, on my part, and - in all honesty - I can't really defend the notion of dusty old men in closets keeping alive the skills of old.

All I'd reiterate is that I do worry about the loss of celluloid and the inevitable loss of the people who know how to work with it. It will happen - there are many precedents for it. It's good that that doesn't bother you, but that's where we differ.

 

[Brent Hutto]

Anthony,

No insult intended but from what you've posted in this thread it's hard to distinguish between your dislike of digital grading as a specific technique and your preference for old movies over newer ones.

I can't grasp any analogy between Gene Kelly being allowed to dance in long takes and the use of chemical color timing as opposed to digital grading. Kelly's dancing could be edited in short takes...or long takes. The coloration of an image on film could be produced by lighting, filters and timing...or by digital grading.

If a scene in a movie has odd or exaggerated coloration and that detracts from the scene then that's a bad thing no matter what technique was used to produce it. Conversely, if a sepia tint to a scene works well artistically knowing that it was done by filters and/or chemical manipulation as opposed to digital grading isn't what makes it work. A movie is an artifact to be judged on its merits and only technology geeks care how a given effect was achieved, IMHO.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Right. And when grading is used subtly, it's also not visible.

They're the same, you just have more options with grading, and you can change your mind later.

As a photographer, I prefer to do most if not all of the work when taking the shot in the first place, but at the same time I absolutely love the flexibility of the digital darkroom. I shut down my colour darkroom three years ago in favor of pigment printers, and since then I haven't worried so much about contrast when shooting in colour. I used to carry a couple of different colour films in my bag that had different properties in terms of contrast, but now I just take one low contrast film and adjust afterwards.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Exactly. It's about the use of the tool, not the tool itself. Though I'm sure there are people on hardware forums complaining about the overuse of cordless drills.

 

[Anthony Neilson]

I don't disagree with either of you. I should have called the thread TOO MUCH ODD OR EXAGGERATED COLORATION THAT DETRACTS FROM SCENES ? but that seemed less catchy.

Forget Gene Kelly - that's a digression from my main theme and anyone reading the above posts can see how it took over the thread. But yes, as I've said repeatedly, I'm not against digital grading per se. I'm against its MISUSE and its OVERUSE !!! And I was just wondering whether anyone else agreed that digital grading is being MISUSED and OVERUSED a bit much in films recently !

OK, so I'd just like to ask you, as a professional photographer : in your opinion, is the digital grading in, say, the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy a bit much ? Because what bothers me most about digital grading in a film like that is exactly that it does look like a filter- I don't know how to describe it any better than that. Because, to me, colour timing for film seemed a subtler and richer process.

(And then I'll get started on how I'd like to see a return to miniature work in the STAR WARS films and you can put a burning tyre on me and chase me through the woods with dogs.)

 

[Michael Reuben]

It's a fact, not a theory, that lighter and more portable equipment changed the way directors and cinematographers conceived of both individual shots and entire scenes. Many industry professionals have talked about this; one example is the late John Alonzo in Visions of Light. It's not a question of the number of edits; it's a question of the overall conception of the scene.

I can't see any connection between your original point about digital grading and your action movie/editing example. Bad movie-making is bad movie-making, in any era. I'm forced to agree with Brent Hutto that this is beginning to sound like a sustained exercise in "they don't make 'em like they used to".

M.

 

[Ricardo C]

I actually find the use of digital grading in the LOTR films to be appropriate, believe it or not. It never seems excessive except in the places where it's supposed to be:

For examples, the Elvish strongholds of Rivendell, Lothlórien, and the Grey Havens are meant to look markedly more "ethereal" than the rest of the world, because they're under the influence of the three Elven rings, which preserved them in a sort of "out of time" state, as they were thousands of years ago. The use of digital grading in the rest of the locations looks, at least to my eyes, much more restrained and realistic, except perhaps in The Return of the King, where even the Shire has received a bit of "Elvish glow", something I didn't really care for.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

I thought that the Lord of the Rings movies looked overdone, but that it was appropriately overdone. If I think hard enough, I can come up with an example of something I thought was overdone and crappy, but I don't want to hurt myself -- I've pushed bad-looking films out of my mind on purpose.

I can think of a really bad mis-use/overuse of filters: John Carpenter's Vampires. I don't know WHAT was going on with that film, particularly the tobacco-coloured gradient filter.

I saw Ray recently, and while I was aware of the amount of digital post-production work that had been done, I thought it was stunning and pretty much just right. A really gorgeous film to look at. 90% of what was done could probably been done with light, filters, film selection and chemical processes, but the fact that it wasn't done that way does not bother me in the least.

I was thinking that another plus to digital grading instead of fooling around with the chemical process is that the digital result is precise and repeatable and predictable, where, for instance, the way Clockers was shot, every day was a bit of an adventure at the lab, with everyone worried that the results would be unuseable.

Anyways, I do agree that there are lots of examples of bad work done digitally out there. I don't think that it's any more prevalent than the bad work done in the analog realm. It's another trend, like when about ten years ago everyone decided that everything needed to be super-high contrast with the whites blown out. Blecch.

 

[MarcusUdeh]

 

[David Forbes]

So more editing is somehow a regression? Sorry, I don't follow the logic of that argument. It is different. Fast editing, when done correctly, can convey a sense of urgency or create an illusion of action that would be diminshed by longer takes. I would consider that an evolution, because it certainly doesn't eliminate the use of long takes. It's just another tool for filmmakers to use.

Take the fight scene in Balin's tomb in Fellowship of the Ring. There are very fast edits when the orcs come swarming into the chamber, which increases the perception that the fight is fast, furious, and dangerous. But there are longer cuts interposed as well. The scene in which the cave troll knocks Gimli aside, then tries to pound him with its hammer and swipes an orc instead, is a fairly long cut. So is the length of the cut in which the troll is seeking Frodo around the pillar. Are you saying directors should not be allowed to use fast edits?

 

[Carlo_M]

To me, digital grading is just like any other tool for filmmakers (be it CGI, fast cuts, stop-motion animation, whatever).

And just like all of those other tools, I ask that it be used for one purpose: to tell the story the filmmaker wants, without detracting or DISTRACTING from it.

Just like all those other tools, sure it can be overused. IMO, when it gets to the point where the story suffers, or its overuse distracts someone from the actual movie (and hence the story) that the director is trying to tell, then it needs to be reigned in.

But in the cases of O'Brother, and let me take the new Oceans 12 I just saw, I had zero problem with it. Why? Because the movies were great (okay O'Brother was great, Oceans 12 was good but the problems that film had, well they had little to do with digital grading). I know Soderbergh is big on digital grading, but I've enjoyed nearly all of his films and felt that his use of the technology never detracted from the film.

To present the counter view, I felt that the new Star Wars prequels had so much time and energy invested in the CGI aspect that the storytelling (and dialogue, and plot) side suffered. Give me the old Star Wars with the witty dialogue, great love triangle, and model-sized spaceships any day.

The Lord of the Rings used digital grading to get that "otherworldly" look. Again, as a fan of the novel, I find faults with the movies, but they have nothing to do with the [over]use of digital grading (or CGI).

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Fast cutting: makes all the difference in the world to the early Bond films, where it's used sparingly but extremely effectively.

Digital grading and Soderbergh: check out Out of Sight, which as far as I know was not digitally graded: it has a very similar look to his digitally graded films, even though it was shot the old fashioned way. It's been a long time since I listened to the commentary, but as I recall he references colour filters (and at one point, shooting a tungsten film without a balancing filter outside in the sunlight to get the steely blue look for Detroit) and the colour-coding of the flashbacks that help to keep the audience clear on what time-period they're watching.

 

[Anthony Neilson]

OK, OK, enough already. So nobody agrees with me. Obviously, you think I'm arguing that NO fast cutting should be used and NO digital grading should be used, which was never really my point. Well, we'll get the films we deserve. One day, all movies will look like Tony Scott directed them, and you'll only have yourselves to blame.

So there.

 

[Ricardo C]

If I knew this would be your final conclusion, I would never have attempted to engage you in a debate. It's insulting, and shows you didn't really bother to read a word that weas said to you.

 

[Anthony Neilson]

Jesus, Ricardo - my last comment wasn't meant to be that serious. I should have put a smiley face, I guess, instead of saying "So There". Dry sense of humour. Sorry.

Obviously, I read everything that was posted here. I can see how you get the idea that I hate all modern films but that's really not true. To an extent, I've been playing devil's advocate, and I've admitted in an earlier post that I digressed a little too far at times.

I still stand by the main thrust of this thread, which is primarily that digital grading is being used, shall we say, unsubtly in modern films. I've got to admit, I'm pretty surprised that absolutely nobody seems to agree with me, and
I've grown a bit bored of fighting this corner by myself -
in the face, I should add, of some posts which I feel have been unnecessarily hostile in tone. I'm not saying everyone should agree with me ; just that I have to accept the fact that my perception isn't shared.

It's true, though, that I think there are a lot of sloppy practices in film today across the board. To say that there always have been isn't really a good excuse. Interestingly, the thread on Clint Eastwood's new film MILLION DOLLAR BABY touches on a few of these issues.

I'm neither progressive or reactionary about these matters. I just want to see well-told, well-crafted movies that make sense visually AND intellectually. I'm sure you do too ; but obviously that means different things to all of us.