Jimbo

Found him: Saul Leiter.

i agree!
i find this to be a fascinating example for several reasons; not the least of which is that the recoloring of this comic, The Killing Joke (1988), was done in 2008 by Brian Bolland, the extremely talented man who did the pencils in the first place – the guy who drew it~!
hes no amateur, but he missed the boat here didnt he?
to approach this as a black and white page, like a coloring book, i feel that its a natural first instinct to start coloring things the colors that they are, as seen on the right above and below. but our job is to do more with color... like....... an artist lol
here, commissioner jim gordon is being driven to insanity by the joker. on the left we see what he feels. the page on the right is clearly unemotional and anemic in comparison

now, again, this is a metaphor in more ways than one when it comes to filmmaking, but its a literal point in terms of two dimensional representational imagery

Great example, Kaylee. I haven't seen a side by side like this before. I've seen recoloured single frames from films, but a single frame from a film means very little when you don't have the context of the story.
The left hand side, definitely, because instantly in that first frame I was on edge because of the red, which I should be because this is a dangerous scene. Also in the first frame the whole background is washed out in red. The red is the element of contention, but also the red turns the human in a cage into an inactive background object, better highlighting the joker as the subject. On the right hand side there is almost too much detail about the cage (because of the colour) and your focus is torn; is joker talking to the guy in the cage or what? Is he going to raise his head? No, he's not, he's beaten, he's defeated. The colour in the left better communicates this.
Also the last frame. In the right hand image the splash under Joker and the coke can pull the eye away from what's important. They are great details to set the environment, but the colour on the left turns them into background objects leaving your subconscious to pick up the details while your eye is drawn to what it should be. Also the colour adds ferocity and more movement to the frame.

fascinating
i did this, and i gotta say, i found the look of the show – including all aspects of art direction which appear on screen – to be completely forgettable and boring
i watched several different clips from season one and two and my general critique is that color and lighting are not being used dramatically in terms of storytelling in a lot of the shots
dont get me wrong, its clearly technically sound, but its boring
but boring in a very pretty, attractive way, which forces you to look at it more than through it – like a window. and this is a disconnect in terms of immersion and suspension of disbelief – storytelling
in general it also looks too much like crappy-poo reality, which we all know too well
so my assessment is that you would like this show more if color was used in a more meaningful way
let me blow your mind with an analogy:

which is better? why? more here
 

Well I suppose if you only ever work on jobs with six figure budgets then I can see how you can come to that conclusion. But if you've ever spent any time working on sub-10k jobs, or events, weddings, some online content, even reality/bts for TV, you'll find all sorts of pros shooting all sorts of cameras, using all sorts of adapters. And that's a lot of working professionals doing good work. 

Very interesting tugela. 
Now let's come back to reality. When using a speedbooster you are in the case where you have a lens that has an image circle larger than the one needed to fill the sensor. The speedbooster "takes that circle and compresses it", this means the aberrations will also be scaled and you end up with more resolution. It will not be as good as using a bigger sensor, but it will be sharper than using the lens without the speedbooster.
http://www.metabones.com/assets/a/stories/Speed Booster White Paper.pdf
check fig 21 for a real world sample
You don't have to thank me, just say something coherent.

This is ridiculous for so many reasons...

Went and got the E-M5 II with version 1.0 firmware instead, will try shooting a test scene in V1 then upgrade to V2 and see what the difference is.

A fascinating and insightful thought. I haven't seen much of Broadchurch myself but I think I had a similar experience when watching Tree of Life. The imagery is mind-blowing, delivered through artisan cinematography, but I actually found it exhausting to watch because every frame demanded your attention. It was also a tiring mix of fluid shots and sharp cuts.
I found its portrayal of life, especially the growing up scenes with the brothers, wholly truthful and evocative in places, but the continual movement of the camera and breaking from abstract to real was overwhelming at times. I would liken the experience to reading a literary novel or visiting an art gallery. You can gobble up the craftsmanship of each paragraph and painting for only so long before you get art indigestion.
I watch such films and read such books to learn, but when the art overwhelms, or is stronger than, the story then I start to lose interest, nay, get angry. This may be the problem with Broadchurch, that the visual art is drowning the story, which is made all the more difficult for someone like yourself who is tuned to spot beautiful cinematography.

The second season of Broadchurch is up on Netflix, so I have been watching. And after a while, I found myself thinking "what beautiful images, what talented cinematography, what great color." No matter what you think of the content of the show, it is made by incredibly competent people. Apart from some annoying, intentionally-jerky handheld work, there is great composition, some amazing tracking work and focus pulls, great control of light and beautiful colors for people and landscapes alike. And the lenses are just beautiful too - there is a lot of shallow depth of field work, and the backgrounds are soft and creamy and not distracting. Generally, the images just "pop" in all aspects. So I googled out of curiosity, and it was shot on Alexa.
But after a while longer, I began to feel... oppressed by all the imagery. And that is what I wanted to start the topic about - the aesthetics. Broadchurch has all the things that people on this forum often talk about positively, and that I would take as positives too - the intelligent and creative use of shallow depth of field that comes with big sensors, color that is vivid yet "real," and an organic "film-like" image. You won't see any clipping or noise on this show...
If you haven't seen it, you can pull up a few minutes online and see what I mean. It can be any few minutes.
I am trying to reflect on this oppressiveness I am feeling, because it is making it hard for me to watch. And I am wondering if anyone sees/feels the same. The best theory I have is this - on color, it is like living in an eternal "golden hour." The colors are absolutely lovely, but you wish sometimes they would go away - they are asking too much of you in their loveliness. On the shallow depth of field: the work is incredibly proficient, but sometimes you wish you could just see the scene and decide where to look, and not have your attention dragged around the scene by the decisions of the director and cinematographer. Again, you wish it would go away and ask less of you.
Maybe it is just me, and I am just odd. But I am wondering if anyone else has had this feeling, on this or some other film and their aesthetics. It is great, in many many ways, but in some way (for me, at least) it is "too" great. I would aspire in my dreams to produce images with a fraction of the quality of those in Broadchurch, but I find myself being distracted by them and not wanting to watch.

The spread of strengths across the camera industry is driving me a bit nuts.
Only Blackmagic do cheap affordable int. 10bit ProRes.
Only Olympus do effective stabilisation.
Only Panasonic do cheap 4K in Micro Four Thirds cam
Only Fuji do a film-inspired shooting experience (although Olympus run them close)
Only Sony max out the specs and do a full frame mirrorless camera
Only Samsung do a really responsive fast ergonomic DSLR-style mirrorless camera
Only Canon... I mean only Magic Lantern do raw video.
 
The A7S II is closest to the perfect camera but the handling is just...so soulless.
Currently I am thinking of keeping hold of the E-M5 II as a stills camera, second to the NX1 and A7S II as my main video cameras.

Just for fun, I'm gonna guess he's keeping the:
A7S II because it's the hottest camera right now and it is the leader in low light capabilities.
GH4 because of its reliability and how it has become a standard in the industry.
NX1 because you never know what update may come that changes the game
5D3 because of Canon lenses and EOSHD heritage.

The innovation in the camera world that needs to happen is in the multi device communication.
why can't you use an iPad to apply meta data to the clips in the camera? you can use an ipad to change setting.
why can't wireless mics talk directly to the cameras? 
why can't cameras talk to each other?
We have more and more recording devices on each set and its the editors job to sort them and figure it out but the cameras and the other devices could be doing a huge amount of the labeling, sync data, notes, circle takes, etc...
 
I think there is a huge opportunity in an adhock wireless mesh networking in production. No one seems to want to bother.  

 

I think it also make sense when we call our camera/sensor size:
I film in Full Format (5d) and after testing a lot of lenses, especially primes, I came back again to the Canon 24-70mm/2,8 L MKI as my main lens!
In the end it has beaten all of my other lenses in case of "character" and color rendition!

But under special circumstances I love several Minolta lenses, (modified to EF mount):
Minolta Rokkor MD 45mm 1:2 - a 30,-€ lens with a beautiful color - and 3d performance!
Also the Minolta MC 35mm 1,8 HH (excellent sharpness, very 3d-ish, but colors not as good as the 24-70, too blue, too magenta).
The Minolta MD 24mm 1:2,8 (Collaboration with Leica) - a ultra sharp and clean 24mm wide angle lens on FF!
Nikkor 85mm f2 ai - simply a nice, sharp and affordable lens.

Nikkor ai/ai-s lenses always surprised me. They innately deliver a very special cinematic image!
I want to have more of it, so I am looking forward to further recommendations...

Here a quick test of the Minolta 45mm (f2 is very ordinary, but from 2,8 it shines:)
 

 

Similiar conclusions here after having used Premiere for a couple of days. 

I tried to cut an entire project (that I cut before in FCPX) in Premiere to get familiar with the program. Some things seem a lot less intuitive because I'm not used to the program, other things are a lot less intuitive because that's the way the program works. I think the overall color grading in Premiere is great but editing, clip organization etc. in FCPX suits my workflow much better. I'll stick with FCPX if I need to edit something quickly. Knowing the basics in Premiere will definitely be helpful in the future though!

Color Finale is a plugin that I regularly use, mainly to apply LUTs to my footage. That's one of the things I hate about FCPX; you can't use your own LUTs. So I usually do my basic color corrections with the built in correction tools, apply a one of the IWLTBAP LUTs that suits the footage and set the LUT opacity somewhere between 30% and 70%. 

Another really cool plugin for FCPX is Oliver Color. It allows you to adjust exposure, contrast, saturation, highs mids and lows, hue and a couple other things... and it's free. https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2015/06/07/building-a-free-fcp-x-color-correction-filter/

I used first FCPX, then switched to Premiere (for some reasons but the main one being the easy workflow with After Effects dynamic links) and now I switched back to FCPX a few days ago because I decided I would give it a new try. 

Things I like about FCPX:
ergonomics and timeline, clip organization with easy keywords and so on
Things I like about Premiere:
After Effect dynamic link
Lumetri and overall color grading
But I just found out the plugin Color Finale on FCPX is exactly like lumetri in better:
basic color correction, lut utility, curves, ... AND opacity selection for each setting + a master opacity which is great. I am sold. bye bye premiere
 
https://vimeo.com/119422039

Dear Sekhar, it depends what you define as "story". No there is no classic story. But thank god for it, we can't live forever with "a guy meets girl and fall in love" and/or "someone killed someone else, let's see who did it" kind of stories. 
As much as there can be non-verbal communication, there can be non-verbal audio-visual story. Watchtower of Turkey offers a glimpse of Turkey in 3.30 minutes and of course, it can't replace travelling and staying there! But for those who have never been there, I more than welcome to have seen it!

Lol @ Pizza Rat...
I was taking into account the fact that it was an amateur filmmaker showcasing his art, and in that respect that kind of response/ dialogue is what we all aspire to generate and I am sure some people here do on on a regular basis.
I get your point though. Right now more than ever, as video is everywhere and getting cheaper to produce, story is king. Effects don't age well. I don't really look at this style as something a serious filmmaker would want to be known for. I am sure they would prefer people to appreciate how they use the camera to tell a story. In that respect, this video is a bit 'gimmicky' as it is swapping storytelling for the 'geezus, how did you do that' appeal. If you read comments for some of the more recent videos imitators have made, you can tell that people are kind of getting tired of it already. Everyone now is trying to tell a bit of story, such as Brandon Li to great effect, check out some of the links I posted. 
But none-the-less, if you are going to make a travel video and you are on your lonesome with a camera and a couple of lenses, it is an interesting skill to master - and tell yourself youve been there and done that. It also teaches you some important skills with regards to composition/ framing, movement, sound editing, organising footage etc.
We must also remember that montage, or random shots put together, is a bona fide genre that has been around since the beginning of film. When done well it can have the same impact on the viewer as a great story.
 
 

I'm afraid you can't really ignore a DSLR filmmaker that has garnered over 500, 000 views and 1, 393 comments. It is safe to say that this 'gimmick' has inspired a lot of amateurs to get out and shoot, myself included. It is rare to see something inspiring that you could do in your hometown, on a shoe string budget, all by yourself. I would even throw it out there that it is the essence of what the DSLR community is all about.

Dam, I just watched a preview video on Lumetri and wish FCP X had this kind of panel. These tools are perfect for about of 95% of what I do and I find FCP X's colour board clunky. I can't move fast as I want to. However, I'm a big fan of FCP X and the magnetic timeline, I can work very quickly and not sure a switch to Premiere just for Lumetri makes sense.
Anybody switched? How do you find Premiere?

I believe that it is a recognition of your unique voice. My unbanned virtual self screams conformity.

Take a little break and smile (or laugh).
Sony A7Rii BOX unboxing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29BiYaKkMDM
 
 

I would first like to qualify the comments that follow by saying that I really appreciate your reviews and insights, they are informed and very valuable and I always look forward to reading them.

That said, I can not help but notice that what was categorised as a "minor quibble" in your a7s review 15 months ago is now called "pixel-binned mush with moire and false colour". I quote this not as a criticism of your comments, but rather as proof that I feel that Sony has already become a victim of its own success. Maybe it should put the brakes on the incredible pace of its camera development, because what was "the best sensor I have ever shot on" last year is so quickly superseded. 

Given the incredibly rapid advances in technology that Sony can bring to market, it really is a very important question for professionals and enthusiasts alike as to whether we should keep upgrading or hold on to what we have. For years we had the same thing with stills photography and the sensor resolution "arms race". Thankfully common sense is just starting to prevail. Perhaps we need a similar reality-check with video? After all, how many people buying video-capable cameras really do need to shoot 4k professionally? For me personally, my a7s mark one will serve me well for years to come, and I relish the opportunity in the very near future to pick up a backup body at a bargain knock down price!
 
 

Just did a long 4K recording run to test for overheating. Inconclusive as the battery died at 28mins
Will try again tonight.

The eagle eyed amongst you may have noticed I've been taking over a month off from EOSHD. Here are my views on what happened whilst I was away.
I am selling up...
After over 5 years of EOSHD I must admit to needing a break from gear. I'm going to completely wipe the slate clean later this month. I will clean out my studio and move. I am selling almost everything I have, but rather than putting it on eBay I will be offering it to EOSHD readers first. Almost everything is going including my Sony A7R II and Canon 1D C. Email me now if you're interested.
EOSHD will continue, but more like in the earlier days. A focus on an artistic approach to cheap gear and lenses. What is the point of me buying a $8k camera and as a result never being interested in the next GH5 or cheap $600 killer camera that kicks way above its station?
So although I won't be buying a Raven or Sony FS5 then, I will continue to offer my views on the higher end kit at EOSHD...
Read the full article