Seriously, why did I get an OLED?
(midwest.social)
pelespirit
People TwitterIt's even more stupid when you consider the availability of HDR and Dolby Vision.
Suddenly you have access to high quality color mapping features thst formerly relied on you using expensive film to ensure you get all the colors you want, both pre and post processing.
But then you just take a dump all over it with an awful color grade that makes using HDR almost pointless.
I went with TCL MiniLED which has awesome contrast and deep blacks due to their newer backlight tech so it's essentially a poor man's OLED, and the films that actually used HDR/DV to their advantage look absolutely stunning. MI7's opening with the submarine looks awesome with the contrast of the characters and their deep red and green displays illuminating the scene.
I haven't heard the TCL miniLED. I'll look into it. I saved up for OLED and then Best Buy had an awesome sale that they didn't want to honor when I came to pick it up. I see now that Costco has the same price for bigger tvs. I'm guessing it's because they have competition now? This was 4 years ago or something too that best buy tried to screw me. They honored it in the end, but there was a lot of hulabaloo going on with management.
it's often crazy to put on a foreign film and see vibrant colors. it's almost like a religious experience. who knew green looked like green? american color graders are just like 'lets turn the brightness down to barely being able to see anything on the screen.'
I think they do that to cover for shitty CGI. Can't tell its shit if you can't see it.
“Hero” was so mindblowing when it came out!
Ironically, that movie purposefully used color themes to convey the mood of each scene.
There's a whole separate subcategory of this complaint titled, "Color Grading Fucking Up Re-Releases."
I think one of the LoTR editions is grossly color-graded, and streaming Buffy The Vampire Slayer will give you color grading in conflict with the narrative, but you'll likely be too distracted by the bizarre framing to notice.
Ah, I love how incredibly stupid and careless the Buffy "remaster" was made. Let me talk about that in two pictures:
Hell, why not show parts of the set, including the crew. Color grading was completely skipped for some scenes, which derails the whole narrative, as they're now seemingly taking place during day, for example. It's amazing.
It is something to behold briefly, before popping in the DVD.
I'd settle for muted colors if things were lit at all at this point. So many movies feel like they filmed in an abandoned warehouse at midnight with all the lights turned off.
A movie video essayist I watch did a good video I share with non cinema folks about the lack of colors in marvel movies.
You might enjoy it: Why do Marvel movies look kind of ugly?
New Star Trek manages to look dark even with tons of lights for the lensflares. Because nothing says „space“ and „modern“ like working in a dim, depressing space while simultaneously getting blinded by half a dozen lights strategically placed at eye height.
Oh don't get me started on lensflares or motion blur. So many people think we need to keep them in order to know we're watching a movie because "that's how it's always been". I don't get why limited technology of the past should be the standard. Should we go back to black and white only again? Why do we have sound? Never used to. You had an organist to tell you you're in a movie.
I always think about old school star wars for space. There is not a single doubt in my mind they're in space during those fighter battles, but I can see everything without getting blinded or having to strain.
Motion blur is necessary for movies. They don't run at 60fps, they run at 24fps. They would feel stuttery if they didn't have motion blur. That's why even computer animated movies have fake motion blur added to them.
The issue is the fake CGI motion blur. It’s overdone. It’s not at all natural the way real motion blur on a film camera is.
I blame the digital workflows where everything is shot in RAW at high shutter speed and then digitally motion blurred and colour graded all to crap. Watch old movies that were shot on film and they look a million times better than the brown haze we got with Dune.
Except they could run at 60+ fps. I watched The Hobbit in High Frame Rate and it was glorious. It didn't take off because too many people complained of it not looking like a movie. The exact same complaints they had when movies switched to HD. Only this time the complaints sunk it for the most part instead of studios taking the time to adjust to new production methods. We get like one HFR movie a year now.
Wasn't the problem that you got more information in the same time so that the footage had to be sped up and that looked silly ?
It's more because there was no blur covering everything so you definitely saw some of the tricks they used. Saw it was just costumes and stuff.
It wasn't major or like in your face in my opinion but it was there, and people couldn't accept a transition time as studios figured out how to make stuff look good at the higher frame rate. Better or different makeup or add more oomph to costumes or whatever.
If you go and look at old forum comments about movies like, I want to say The Prestige (2006), some of the first ones to hit Blu-ray, they said similar stuff. The higher pixel counts revealed when rocks were fake and sets and stuff.
I think they're talking about overdone motion blur. You wouldn't notice it if it wasn't overdone.
No, I'm taking about higher frame rate which makes motion blur completely outdated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_frame_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_with_high_frame_rates
But then what happens to movies not done at the higher fps? You have to compensate somehow for the older films or the hardware that doesn't accept it. I know AI does a really shitty job about compensating for higher fps movies brought down and lower brought up.
You don't have to do anything. Those movies can still be played by high frame rate equipment but at their original frame rate and nothing stops those processes from working to make lower fps movies.
Avatar: Fire and Ash was actually a mixed frame rate movie, shot in 48fps but some scenes done in 24 fps. You can just hold frames for twice as long or half as long as needed.
Oh don’t get me started on lensflares or motion blur. So many people think we need to keep them in order to know we’re watching a movie because “that’s how it’s always been”.
Motion blur only started cropping up in action movies in the 90s to hide bad choreography and lens flare is just something a few directors started doing in the 2000s. Tons of well lit and colorful movies have existed since movies started to be filmed in color and there are plenty without either of those two things.
Anyone who thinks that is 'how it has always been' is extrapolating it from a few directors and their blockbuster movies.
Watch Gone With the Wind and suffer the consequences of being dissapointed by the lighting in almost every modern movie.
Or a lot of the Hitchcock movies. They portray so much with how they play with light.
Thanks for the video link, that was great and explained it well. The part at the end showing the ones done well makes me crave that.
This is just a beginning theory, but I wonder if it has something to do with color blindness or something? They may be getting test audiences that are accidentally more skewed towards it, since men are more likely to have it for some reason.
I doubt it's color blindness. As others have mentioned this lack of color seems to be a more US based phenomenon. I think it's the logical result of the obsession with "gritty and real" that took off with things like "Bourne Identity" in 2002. The laziest and cheapest way to convey that "dark and drab" vibe is by just sucking all the colours out. Movies started getting to mimic Bourne and others like it because they were popular (and yes, like always Hollywood did zero actual investigation into why they're popular and just tried to copy surface level). That just kept spreading and now we're stuck with it
The dark muted limited-colors thing started way before 2002
Here's a random example, the matrix from 1999
https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/r_aina/43070750/172261/172261_original.png
I dunno if 1999 is "way before". That's only three years. I wasn't trying to nail the very first movie that started the trend, just an early example. Bourne specifically I know influenced the next few James Bond movies and they toned down the saturation directly because of Bourne, and it kept spreading.
Yeah, it's a discussion for real. It's okay to stand out now and then and do the less color if there's a reason. It seems like they lost the plot on the color portion.
I thought the main point of OLED was blacker blacks. But, I don't have one.
And, yes, the trend of applying an overall color and contrast wash to different scenes in a movie, and entire movies, has gone too far.
Put them all together and you get the Green Lantern franchise. (The comics more than any on-screen media.)
Yes, the blacks are blacker, but the colors are more vibrant in contrast. I love it for video games. Animations in general are better and so are sports. They hide the good settings when you get the tv though. *The reds have more variety, they're not only purple based.
Red and Green is danger
Lol Christmas is dangerous
Slight digression: "The demon that eats colors" would be an interesting addition to Magic: The Gathering, if it doesn't exist already in some form
I saw Rebel One in theaters. The inky blacks of space were turned into a staticky grey, which I didn't notice until the end of the movie when they got back to the beautiful anthracite that is the entire reason I want to see things happen in outer space.
Got any screenshots for examples?
Denis Villenueve's movies are good examples.
