game of thrones and normal image

[darko]

Hi,

I found this image:
http://www.humr.cz/content/uploads/4...y2-750x375.jpg
It compares images from the movie game of thrones and a amateur camera taken image. Actually it is an article about where the movie is taken.
Also here are more examples:
http://worldinsidepictures.com/trave...-in-real-life/

So I was interested between the difference of the normal image and the movie image.
Do you think that the movie camera has special filters or it is post processing technique.


Regards,
Darko

[wmoore]

Looks like they have played around with the colour temp to give it a nice warm tone.

[chauncey]

darko, those images indicate the differences in taking a photograph and creating an image.
My preference is the latter...thanks for the link.

[Manfred M]

Darko - as a video (using a high end video camera, rather than a still camera to shoot videos) and a video editor on top of the still work, let me try to answer your question.

1. A video camera has much lower resolution than a still camera. A standard HD video camera produces images that are ~ 2MP in size the newest cameras are shooting 4MP and there is some R&D going on to move that to 8MP. Even lower end still cameras are running in the 18MP range.

Pro video / movies are shot with matte boxes in front of the lens and matte boxes have integrated filter holders that are often used in production work.

2. The white balance is different in the two images. The video file has a warm colour cast while the still image has a neutral to cool cast. On a film set, lights, filters and other light modifiers will be used during production. Many of the colour correction tools we use in still image post-processing are available to the video editor.

All editing for video is done using digital non-linear editors (Avid is the "gold standard" in video editing - http://www.avid.com/US/). These tools allow for simple colour changes like changing the colour temperature, vibrance or saturation.

2. Supplementary software (Adobe After Effects and Red Giant Colorista) are two such tools. Colorista is used in color grading work (makes the color consistent across the entire production).

[chauncey]

Manfred, nothing of what you explained was something that I was aware of...thank you.

[darko]

Thank you all for your clarifications.

[rpcrowe]

I think that the most interesting job in the world (FOR ME AT LEAST) would be a researcher/scout to select sites for motion picture or video productions. I would guess that negotiating camera rights might be part and parcel of that job.

[Black Pearl]

Manfred explained it really well - its mostly down to Colour Grading.

Have a search as some movies (whole franchises) have a specific colour grading that sets them apart or often quite literally makes them what they are.

For example the matrix uses very strong colour grading to create a feel for the virtual v real worlds.

[Timar]

I think it boils down to essentially 3 properties that set the "movie look" apart from a "point and shoot look", at least when considering stills only:

1) Creative and dramaturgical use of the depth of field (often deliberately limited)
2) The often extensive use of color grading (as decribed in the previous posts)
3) Overlapping with 2), some kind of high dynamic range processing.

Point 2) and 3) overlap because color grading means not just to adjust the color balance but actually the overall tonal response curve, which basically is HDR processing (without local adjustments). However, current high-end cameras enable much more dynamic range to be captured than any point and shoot camera and even most DSLRs can capture with a single shot. Arri, for example, connects two seperate A/D converter chips to the camera sensor in order to record the same frame at two different ISO sensitivities, allowing the camera to capture a dynamic range of a full 16 EV.

@Black Pearl: I like your signature

[darko]

I found something interesting. Hollywood makes color collection with orange and teal effect: http://priceonomics.com/why-every-mo...ange-and-blue/

Also this can be done in lightroom with split toning and use orange for highlights and teal for darks.

[Manfred M]

I found something interesting. Hollywood makes color collection with orange and teal effect: http://priceonomics.com/why-every-mo...ange-and-blue/

Also this can be done in lightroom with split toning and use orange for highlights and teal for darks.

Any global colour adjustments that we can do still images can be reproduced when video is being rendered digitally. I suspect Lightroom would not be the way this effect is added in the movie business. They have tools (and plugins) designed for that industry. I mentioned a couple of them in my previous post in this thread.

[darko]

Any global colour adjustments that we can do still images can be reproduced when video is being rendered digitally. I suspect Lightroom would not be the way this effect is added in the movie business. They have tools (and plugins) designed for that industry. I mentioned a couple of them in my previous post in this thread.

Yes, right, but I like to say that I found one way how to do it for still images in lightroom.

[Manfred M]

Yes, right, but I like to say that I found one way how to do it for still images in lightroom.

Yes - that is one way, but this is a common effect and quite a number of different pieces of software to do photo editing can do this. There Photoshop does it. Nix Color Efex Pro 2 does it as well, etc. etc.

[Rob Ekins]

So I was interested between the difference of the normal image and the movie image.
Do you think that the movie camera has special filters or it is post processing technique.

Darko,
My 2c....none of the above!

Why:
Lighting and composition. Take any of the images made by either party, desaturate them and the stronger images are always the ones created by the professional, they have trained for years to have an eye for lighting and composition.

[Manfred M]

Darko,
My 2c....none of the above!

Why:
Lighting and composition. Take any of the images made by either party, desaturate them and the stronger images are always the ones created by the professional, they have trained for years to have an eye for lighting and composition.

Robbie - having done some advanced video production and editing courses / work I would have to disagree. I will agree that composition and lighting do play a major role, just like they do in photography, but there is certainly more to it than that.

It's a bit like saying photographers don't use filters while shooting and use images SOOC. Videographers and filmakers use many of the same techniques that photographers do. My matte box has slots for two filters and if you look at the history of Lee filters, a lot of their clientele were the large movie production houses (the rectangular filters have their origins in that business).

Have a look at the standard effects you get in software like the major non-linear editing (NLE) software packages out there (Avid Media Composer, Apple Final Cut Pro and Adobe Premiere Pro), and you will find these basic effects functions there. I can change the saturation, add noise, film-grain quite easily using a technique that is similar to using an adjustment layer in Photoshop.

We have plugins like Nik, OnOne, etc. and the non-linear editors have plug-ins by companies like Red Giant. Even those productions that still shoot on film stock have the footage digitized and the work is edited digitally using NLE software. This output is then rendered and output to film for use in traditional projection equipment or stored electronically for digital projection.

Even some films shot on film used special chemical processing techniques to create a certain look to the film, just like we used to push film or cross process film for the look that this gave.