[Tig] Premature Death of SR
sklein54 at earthlink.net
sklein54 at earthlink.net
Thu Mar 24 17:13:01 GMT 2011
Well written Martin, but I.M.H.O nobody knows the difference at home.
Don't we really only bust butt for 10 or 12 people who get it and care on
every project? The end-viewer out there somewhere isn't a consideration.
They dont have the gear, don't know the difference, and could not possibly
care less. If you 'A-B' between before (suck) and after (bitchin)
for viewers at home they can see it, but in context when the picture fades
up from black and they can see the folds in Scarlet Johannson's top when she
bends down it's all good.
Love my trade, the checks keep clearing and I take the sporadic exceptions
It's not about the gear, it's just that nobody knows the difference at
home...they never have.
Thanks for listening and have a great day.
From: Martin Sansom
Sent: Mar 22, 2011 2:38 PM
To: tig at colorist.org
Subject: [Tig] Premature Death of SR
Sohonet http://www.sohonet.co.uk sponsors the TIG.
Digital Vision is patron of the TIG.
Marquise Technologies supports the TIG.
Colorist Directory at http://tig.colorist.org/wiki/Category:Colorist
Interesting discussion but in my opinion the aesthetic appreciation of the
images we deal with has been overlooked.There has been a magnificent irony
in the last thirty years since I started as a colourist, there was a time
when engineers, telecine operators, online editors et al would work long
hours into the night extracting fractions of a percentage of performance
improvement out of analog components in order to get the best out of the
film that the image had been acquired from and the CRT domestic television
that the viewer watched at home, it was the creed to constantly raise the
bar in terms of image quality because the acquisition and distribution
devices were capable of displaying more than the post production devices
could process. That's all changed now, it's flat screen compressed digital
hell, the viewer watches TV on a device that comes nowhere near the look
of a CRT television and now with digital acquisition colourists spend more
time faking the film look ( more artificial grain anyone? ) just as well
we have these fancy do everything colour correctors, i need all those
windows and plug ins in order to con the viewer (and the client) into
believing that the image they're watching has more dynamic range that it
actually has, rarely do I finesse a look from film anymore, instead I have
to drag it kicking and screaming from a camcorder on steroids.
Television audiences, the final arbiters of our work, have dumbed down
their expectations of us and what we do, apparently they would rather have
a thousand channels of artifact laden digital mush than sumptuous high
quality imagery, and we, the purveyors of those images have likewise done
the same, apparently for the same reason, we've always been under the
thumb of the bean counters but the ongoing argument on here shows in my
opinion that the accountants have hijacked my gamma curve and I can't
afford the ransom.
Martin "might as well grade it on a Kindle" Sansom.
Colourist at large.
More information about the Tig