• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Why so many digital indie short-films have such high contrast and saturation?

M

MrDirector

I'm wondering about this because almost every indie short film I've seen this past year seems to have a very high saturation (usually red and yellowish.)


I'm wondering if it's the auto filters they use to make the footage look more like film? I can understand for a commercial or music video you'd want that. And I'm sure it isn't just out of preference but more out of some technological necessity. But does anyone know why so many digital short films have a very high saturation? Is it an artistic preference or is there something more?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
As far as I can tell, a lot of indie directors have absolutely no visual taste (even less so than Hollywood peoples) and get hooked on all sorts of silly fads. These days it's that lo-fi "hipster" look with weird colors and saturation levels, done with a particular lack of artistic aesthetic that makes me want to take away their 3-way color correction filters.

(Don't even get me started on their musical scores...)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Poorly calibrated monitors and what not don't help. Plus, until recently, all video cameras shot fairly high contrast. As cool as the GH2 is (sorry brianluce haha) that's my main complaint against it. Every video I've seen shot with it, including raw and ungraded tests, is too contrasty.

The cinestyle color profile on the Canon DSLR's is truly amazing.

I used to crush blacks back in the day, but now that I'm shooting better stuff I don't like hiding the detail.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The yellow/red coloring seems to show up on DSLRs if they are left to determine whitebalance on their own. We saw that on our last shoot as well until I started insisting that we only use the 2 main presets and gel our lights to adjust the colors within the frame.

VINDICATED! I've been talking about using just tungsten and sunlight presets for a couple of years, but until that shoot I was only pretty sure I was right. I see folks using the myriad of available color temperatures to set their white balances, but the two main ones seem to have less odd color casts associated with them.

I have also noticed that "Available Light" or "Low Light" (As a lighting guy, I read: lazy) seem to accompany descriptions of these shoots. Not sure what to make of that yet, but I'm thinking it through to see if there's any logic to me. Florescents also seem to throw a sickly color on the subject, even the "balanced" bulbs.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
I actually consider that a low contrast de-saturated look, the trendy "hipster" look it seems everybody is really really in love with right now. I'm pretty sick of it personally.
Click to expand...
OMG, so am I.

It was cute the first time or two, but d@mnation... please... does EVERY remotely dystopic film HAVE to be desaturated?

EFFF MEEE!!!!
Why not throw in shaky-cam, too?

What we need is a
- Destaurated
- Shaky-cam
- Five part epic
- Zombies
- vs. Vampires
- vs. Werewolves
- With lightning balls

F##########CK!!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
rayw said:
What we need is a
- Destaurated
- Shaky-cam
- Five part epic
- Zombies
- vs. Vampires
- vs. Werewolves
- With lightning balls
Click to expand...

Cliche Storm
Cliche Storm: Electric Boogaloo
Cliche Storm: the Quickening!
Storm of Cliches (this time it's personal)
Storm
Storm 6 (WTF happened to Storm 2-5, Mr. Rambo?)

God, if anything is calling for a series of youtube shorts...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
JoshL said:
OT for this thread, but as someone learning, I'd be interested in hearing your impending rant :)
Click to expand...

Urgh.

Okay, so a lot of indie scores I hear these days are either some monotonous vaguely radiohead-sounding track or metal/hiphop/whatnot just slapped over the video. There is zero effort made to make the music part of the scene. The scores don't follow what's happening on-screen, and there's no emotional dynamic, no variation. It makes the film play like a poorly-conceived music video and usually absolutely destroys any emotional connection the audience may have made. It's tiring to listen to and completely pulls me out of the film.

Hate. Very much hate.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
escher said:
and get hooked on all sorts of silly fads.
Click to expand...

I could not agree more.

So many makers of short films see something they like on
vimo or YouTube and jump on that band wagon. They do
not create their own style, the mimic what they saw in a
music video.

A new piece of software is released and within a month
there 1,000 movies using that "effect".
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
People are replicating Rec.709 standards, and although they may not know why, they're inadvertently doing exactly what you would do before you go to television or home theater projectors.

I've always thought crushing lows and lower mids is the most newbish and ugliest thing you could do to your footage. Too each their own, of course.

PaulGriffith said:
Poorly calibrated monitors and what not don't help. Plus, until recently, all video cameras shot fairly high contrast. As cool as the GH2 is (sorry brianluce haha) that's my main complaint against it. Every video I've seen shot with it, including raw and ungraded tests, is too contrasty.

The cinestyle color profile on the Canon DSLR's is truly amazing.

I used to crush blacks back in the day, but now that I'm shooting better stuff I don't like hiding the detail.
Click to expand...

I find that we agree more than not, man. That's one thing I hated about the GH2, high contrast. Kinda figured out how to deal with it now and It's not nearly as bad.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
directorik said:
I could not agree more.

So many makers of short films see something they like on
vimo or YouTube and jump on that band wagon. They do
not create their own style, the mimic what they saw in a
music video.

A new piece of software is released and within a month
there 1,000 movies using that "effect".
Click to expand...

Playing Devil's Advocate here, isn't that part of the learning process, and how one learns to create a "style"? Maybe the problem is youtube making what should be practice and turning it into a final product. I know I certainly don't want to watch most of it! But there is something to be said for trying out and understanding a technique, having your usage critiqued by your peers and it eventually being one tool in the box.

Definitely agree with you, escher, on your music gripes. Pop music (as a generic term, not a style, to differentiate from film score) certainly has its place in films, but it's a crutch at best for a short. I'm all for blurring lines (orchestra with electronics, guitars, etc), but a song is about one thing, wheras a scene in a film contains many things that can (and should) be reflected in the music.

But, again advocating devils, if youtube shorts are viewed as filmmakers learning and practicing, that's certainly acceptable (though the next generation of film composers need practice too!) but considerably less so in a feature. One would assume that most people make a feature as a "saleable product".

Caveat as an Argento fan: in a body-count heavy horror/slasher film, at least one death should be set to pop music, rather than score. I like the trick of "ascended diegetic music", that is to say, a song playing on a radio in the background, beneath the scene, becomes louder and clearer, transforming from a bit of the soundscape to the score. If done right, that's a great way for your badass metal/rock/techno song to drive a scene.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Alot of the color characteristics of a camera have to do with the intended outlet for its footage. In the CRT days, Red was lessened in the camera and the compression/codec because the CRTs pushed the reds higher to make flesh tones look better.

Now, with LCD panels spewing their super blue whites at the audience, camera manufacturers who want to look good on the BRIGHT WHITE showroom flat panels, the complement gets added in the camera to make it look right in the showroom where the $$$ is made for the manufacturer.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think a lot of filmmakers simply see a look somewhere and say to their DP, "yeah, make it look like that." It's easy and not always a bad way to go. However, what seems *really difficult to me is creating a NEW look or filmic style.

I'm not a cinematographer or DP, but isn't it possible most filmmakers today are so intently focused on "making it look COOL" that they forget about the story, or that the look jives with the story? A lot of films I see (shorts and features) use ordinary, "turn on the lights and camera" video. As though the camera does it all and that's enough.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Most of the time, not always, independent = inexperienced. That's doubly true of stuff on YouTube and other online sites.

Not everyone is experienced and/or talented enough to craft a look. Almost nobody on earth is talented enough to write, direct, run camera, tweak lights and sometimes even act on set simultaneously, but that's what a lot of "YouTube" stuff is. You got a guy who really wants to focus on cinematography but he has to do it all just to do the cinematography. Replace "cinematography" with any other aspect and there you go.

It takes a team, and a team needs either dedication or money... usually both. The pro stuff we see and compare to has a professional crew of 10-100 and access to most gear they need. Of course the cinematography can be original and have a lot of thought put into it, the DP and camera crew have decades of experience between them and time to focus on a look.

Most "indie" (replace "indie" with "YouTube" or "low budget" ) fads are legit looks that are accessible to low budget projects. UNKOWN with Liam Neeson had a killer look to it, lots of whites blues and golds, different than the teal/orange look of the summer blockbuster. Every prop, costume, light and more was designed around the palette. No way a YouTube short with an under $100 budget (or under $5k probably, and that's for one room, one scene) could obtain all the necessary stuff to pull it off.

That said, you can be original with a low budget, you can have great cinematography and acting, it just takes time, work and great people to work with.

I actually like the extra-low contrast look. I dig it right now anyway. Not right for everything, but when trying to make your 90 second YouTube video "pop" a little more why not?

PS:

Kholi said:
I find that we agree more than not, man.
Click to expand...

Total compliment haha, your stuff looks great. So if like minds gets that then sweet!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
PaulGriffith said:
It takes a team, and a team needs either dedication or money... usually both. The pro stuff we see and compare to has a professional crew of 10-100 and access to most gear they need. Of course the cinematography can be original and have a lot of thought put into it, the DP and camera crew have decades of experience between them and time to focus on a look.

Most "indie" (replace "indie" with "YouTube" or "low budget" ) fads are legit looks that are accessible to low budget projects. UNKOWN with Liam Neeson had a killer look to it, lots of whites blues and golds, different than the teal/orange look of the summer blockbuster. Every prop, costume, light and more was designed around the palette. No way a YouTube short with an under $100 budget (or under $5k probably, and that's for one room, one scene) could obtain all the necessary stuff to pull it off.
Click to expand...

Thanks, PaulG, you captured what's been rambling around in my head for a couple years watching the local scene. I'll be using this approach on my next film, even if it's a short.

Yet I see filmmakers refuse to put the time and effort into these things, or simply don't think they matter! I understand the budget side, but this seems to be a huge (and overlooked) part of what is called "high production value," of making the kind of quality film expected by your audience of choice.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top