before/after CC Thread

-----

Last edited by headshotriddle7 on Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:19 am; edited 1 time in total

press a button or blink an eye & you'll miss it folks.......

---

Last edited by headshotriddle7 on Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:19 am; edited 1 time in total

----

Last edited by headshotriddle7 on Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:19 am; edited 1 time in total

Pacino probably likes the first one, since he looks about 20 years younger.

_________________
Jamie
www.crashandannie.com

I think that Heat example is just good transfer release vs. bad transfer release, not an example of actual color correction.

Also because the comps in the movie look so hideous (the LA balcony scene), I don't think they spent a lot of time tweaking each shot digitally. Smile

---

Last edited by headshotriddle7 on Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:19 am; edited 1 time in total

----

Last edited by headshotriddle7 on Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:20 am; edited 1 time in total

headshotriddle7 wrote:

	Quote:
	I don't think they spent a lot of time tweaking each shot digitally

i think they did. why? because the bluray version looks like a 21st century action blockbuster (minus giant robots and bad writing). it looks beautiful. to me anyway. heres some more examples.

Well, that Bluray is made from a 35mm film print, and you're comparing it to something that looks like VHS, or highly compressed dvd. They didn't *add* all those sharp details for the Blu-ray, either, they were in the theatrical release all along. I really don't see anything there that screams color correction. It's just a good transfer of a movie that looked awesome already in 1995. Smile

Cheers,
- Jonas

----

Last edited by headshotriddle7 on Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:23 am; edited 1 time in total

	headshotriddle7 wrote:
	edit: if that last screenshot of the car doesnt scream color correction i dont know what does.

Maybe there was some color work done, but those two images are from different source resolutions, and likely from different color spaces.

The concreteness of comparing before and after color correction images can't be established as strongly if there are other manipulations happening at the same time.
Maybe (though it's unlikely) there was some work done on one and not the other, but these two images aren't a good starting point for that conversation.

Heat is one of my favorite films. On an purely academic level, there are several shots that confuse me (e.g. Nick and Eady overlooking the city), where maybe the film speed wasn't well matched to the surrounding shots, or maybe the comping was a little heavy-handed.

-----

Last edited by headshotriddle7 on Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:24 am; edited 1 time in total

headshotriddle7 wrote:

	Quote:
	They didn't add all those sharp details for the Blu-ray

theres no way that a good transfer can suck out all of that purpleishness of the filmstock and give the image that teal color in the shadows while maintaining correct skintones.

What purpleness? The only comparison you posted was the bad transfer, which is most likely further away from the original film than your Blu-ray shots.

I'm not saying they didn't do *anything* for the Blu-ray, they propably squeezed the contrast and saturation, but a) that still doesn't look like an extensive CC job to me, and b) you didn't post a comparison of before/after, so you don't know. You posted bad transfer/good transfer. Smile

Now, this is not an important matter or a pet peeve to me, and we're already too far out this track Embarassed

(hey, we're geeks!), but really... you didn't post an example of before and after color correction, you posted a transfer comparison. And the Blu-ray is the one of the two that's *closer* to the 35mm print, if you ask me.

Cheers,
- Jonas

----

Last edited by headshotriddle7 on Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:26 am; edited 1 time in total

All right, I believe you that the original image is purple'r. You surely out-wit me on negatives and stocks and stuff.

But still...

(OK, I'll stop now) Wink