The Movie Photoshopping Thread

[jw]

Originally Posted by Gremal

You shouldn't be so quick to spread rumors. This is how lies get spread on the net. First of all, the director and cinematographer can opt to shoot someone "soft" and without comments from the original crew involved, I would not feel comfortable making a judgment call about whether something is shot a certain way or postproduced to look a certain way. None of the claims I've seen here have been substantiated by anyone in the know.

Secondly, photoshop is not used in film postproduction. Claims that it is just prove the ignorance of the accuser.

Thirdly, who the heck is some dood on a bulletin board online to question the decisions of a director or cinematographer, or even a studio account exec?

OHH, Classic!!!!! I totally agree. People gripe and nitpick every movie released. TF, now IronMan....just enjoy the flick for what it is, entertainment and you will notice less of the tricks of the trade. I though IronMan was great, looked great, etc, but then again I dont analyze films for something they arent

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by jwbbud

OHH, Classic!!!!! I totally agree. People gripe and nitpick every movie released. TF, now IronMan....just enjoy the flick for what it is, entertainment and you will notice less of the tricks of the trade. I though IronMan was great, looked great, etc, but then again I dont analyze films for something they arent

How can you totally agree with that post above by Gremal - I made a massive post showing how Penton-Man and other's had already confirmed that such techniques are being used and other stuff, yet he's basically saying I shouldn't be spreading rumours and this is how lies get spread - I don't know if he's calling me a liar but I have quoted insider's posts to back up a lot of what I have said. He also says who the heck am I to question - when he himself criticises the decisions of film-makers and the quality of films like "Natural Born Killers". Not that I think there's anything wrong with that, reviewers should be allowed to review films (some film reviewers are called film critics), but I don't think it's fair to on the one hand for a reviewer to criticise the decisions of film makers yet tell other people who question decisions "who the heck are you to question their decision". It seems a bit unfair and having double standards.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Directors Intent? In Penton's thread he said they ran out of money while filming it........

I said what ?, who ran out of money ? on what film ?

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I said what ?, who ran out of money ? on what film ?

Oops it was WickyWoo who said it sorry, but it was in your thread:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=3842

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Ultraviolet from what I've heard was intentional for several reasons, but first among them to try to hide the fact that they were given minimal funds to complete the movie

And I don't think any DP or director is going to change their shot for an actor's vanity if they don't have to

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

See this website/post about Sweeney Todd & Resident Evil: Extinction
http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/arc...in_london.html

Well I wouldn’t because I’ve read posts (forwarded to me) where he (Whiggles) and/or his brother(lyris?sp) apparently don’t even know the difference between a telecine and a scan……much less their inherent strengths or weaknesses.

Be that as it may, perhaps folks should keep this in mind………..

Nominations have been announced by the Hollywood Post Alliance for
the Third Annual HPA Awards. Winners of the prestigious HPA Award
will be announced during a gala evening ceremony on November 6, 2008
at the Skirball Cultural Center in Los Angeles.

The awards, launched in 2006, acknowledge creative and technical excellence in the art, science and craft of post production in twelve categories. The HPA Awards recognize the abilities of the talented men and women behind the scenes that are a vital part in the creation of motion pictures, commercials and television.


Outstanding Color Grading Feature Film in a DI Process –
(3 nominated feature films)

Iron Man
Steven J. Scott (EFilm)

Sweeney Todd
Stefan Sonnenfeld (Company 3)

Kite Runner
Mike Sowa (LaserPacific Media Corporation)

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Oops.........

Don't ever say that word in the middle of brain surgery if you're the one holding the scapel !

I will tell you that the filmmakers ran out of time to further degrain the wildly uneven grain in 300 and you can quote me on that anytime in the future.

[jw]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

How can you totally agree with that post above by Gremal - I made a massive post showing how Penton-Man and other's had already confirmed that such techniques are being used and other stuff, yet he's basically saying I shouldn't be spreading rumours and this is how lies get spread - I don't know if he's calling me a liar but I have quoted insider's posts to back up a lot of what I have said. He also says who the heck am I to question - when he himself criticises the decisions of film-makers and the quality of films like "Natural Born Killers". Not that I think there's anything wrong with that, reviewers should be allowed to review films (some film reviewers are called film critics), but I don't think it's fair to on the one hand for a reviewer to criticise the decisions of film makers yet tell other people who question decisions "who the heck are you to question their decision". It seems a bit unfair and having double standards.

hmm can we get a mulligan?

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well I wouldn’t because I’ve read posts (forwarded to me) where he (Whiggles) and/or his brother(lyris?sp) apparently don’t even know the difference between a telecine and a scan……much less their inherent strengths or weaknesses.

So do you mean this technique of blurring (like you described in some posts in the insider's thread) hasn't been used on Sweeney Todd or Resident Evil extinction or the other films I listed? I thought you described the process and said it was written into some people's contracts, including 'people who go on impossible missions'?

edit:
In this post you say that they did use this effect in Sweeney Todd
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=3614

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I received, several PM’s inquiring about Sweeney Todd.

Yes, the digital colorist (one of the best in the business, personally with an award for 300 to prove it) did some defocus work on Johnny D’s face (close-ups) throughout the feature. In fact, it may surprise some folks that some actors are so particular about this sort of thing that they have such digital processing written into their contracts.

P.S.
Esp. those that venture on impossible missions.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by jwbbud

hmm can we get a mulligan?

What's one of them is it something to do with golf?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

So do you mean this technique of blurring (like you described in some posts in the insider's thread) hasn't been used on Sweeney Todd or Resident Evil extinction or the other films I listed? I thought you described the process and said it was written into some people's contracts, including 'people who go on impossible missions'?

No, I'm saying that you shouldn't read and absolutely take as fact anything posted on that particular blog because it can be (and has been) inaccurate, and you will have a heck of a time as a hobbyists trying to differentiate which are technically correct and incorrect statements.

In regards to Sweeney Todd, yes it was intentially used on that film and apparently many professionals believe it was a damn good job.

[4K2K]

OK thanks so the stuff I posted was generally correct but I shouldn't link to websites/blogs like that to back my stuff up but should link to confirmed stuff from industry people like those in the insider's thread is that right? And WickyWoo may have been mistaken about the lack of budget thing?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

1. OK thanks so the stuff I posted was generally correct but I shouldn't link to websites/blogs like that to back my stuff up but should link to confirmed stuff from industry people like those in the insider's thread is that right?
2. And WickyWoo may have been mistaken about the lack of budget thing?

1. That is right.
2. I don't know anything about the production or post of Ultraviolet, so I can neither confirm nor deny.

B.T.W.
I mentioned on the Iron Man *ruination* thread that I would respond to your general 'blurring" query on my Insider's Thread next week...........I'll just copy and post it there.

[4K2K]

Thanks a lot
I don't think a couple of seconds of this effect would ruin a film though (I haven't seen the Iron Man), I do think if it's in the majority of the film and especially if it is very visible or lowering resolution/picture info most of the time it could have a negative effect, but that's just my preference and may not be others or the director's preference, but thanks again, and if it's just a second or 2 in a whole movie it wouldn't really be a problem for me.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Thanks a lot
I don't think a couple of seconds of this effect would ruin a film though (I haven't seen the Iron Man), I do think if it's in the majority of the film and especially if it is very visible or lowering resolution most of the time it could have a negative effect, but that's just my preference and may not be others or the director's preference, but thanks again, and if it's just a second or 2 in a whole movie it wouldn't really be a problem for me.

I will say however that I really don’t see much difference in a poll like this or a poll where you would be against filmmakers (in the DI suite) intentionally crushing their blacks or clipping their whites during the color correction process.

They’re all really just tools used for a creative style.
There is nothing *wrong* or *right* about them.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I will say however that I really don’t see much difference in a poll like this or a poll where you would be against filmmakers (in the DI suite) intentionally crushing their blacks or clipping their whites during the color correction process.

They’re all really just tools used for a creative style.
There is nothing *wrong* or *right* about them.

I suppose if they are crushing blacks/clipping whites it's also removing picture information and I'd generally prefer if they didn't do that either. But maybe you're right and maybe there can be good reasons why they do that.

But as I described in another post there are other reasons why I dislike the effect this thread is about, where using normal in-camera techniques don't have those problems (ie. in the later it doesn't create the digital artefacts or flatten the image or make it look a bit like CGI/waxy/plasticy or mess with the natural film grains) - the in-camera techniques retain the shadows and depth and look more real and they generally will still look okay when someone moves (whereas with cgi they'd have to track the movement properly I think and then apply the effect which I'm not sure always will work ok), even though the in-camera techniques can also make the image softer/give them less actual resolution and detail, it should look more real/natural than the process used in post production.

[jpthomas27]

There are hundreds of thing in movies that are not originally in the script, probably thousands in some movies. Directors and cinematographers have jobs for a reason. They interpret the script and create a vision of the story. What is the difference whether it's done during the production or in post-production?

If there were no effects done in post-production, movies these days would still look like they did 50 years ago.

I'm unclear why this particular effect is being sigled out as possibly negative post-production work when there are thousands of post-production effects added to every single movie.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by jpthomas27

I'm unclear why this particular effect is being sigled out as possibly negative post-production work when there are thousands of post-production effects added to every single movie.

See my post above (post 35) where I explain.