[LifeDistortion]

They need to put the black & white version of the Mist as an option on iTunes like they do for Logan and Mad Max Fury Road. I have never seen The Mist, but I if/when I do finally watch it I want to see it in black and white.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by LifeDistortion

They need to put the black & white version of the Mist as an option on iTunes like they do for Logan and Mad Max Fury Road. I have never seen The Mist, but I if/when I do finally watch it I want to see it in black and white.

if you're watching in a regular tv just get into the controls and turn "color" to 0. blam! b&w.

(this is why i'm asking if it's the same edit)

[demonrail666]

Yes it's the same edit. The b&w just gives it a slightly different mood so no reason why you can't just desaturate your tv.

[!@#$%!]

might be graded a little differently but im gonna assume not much if at all

(because color gets all of the glory but values do most of the work)

thanks!

[greenlight]

Originally Posted by Severian

GO BACK RIGHT NOW.
RIGHT. NOW. IT’S SATURDAY. GO GO!

hehe. tuesday. I'll go on tuesday. today I went to that great little music festival - http://uh.hu/?lang=en

[Severian]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Yes it's the same edit. The b&w just gives it a slightly different mood so no reason why you can't just desaturate your tv.

I imagine it’s a different edit, and not simply a BW/grayscale adjustment of the original. It would look funky. And from what I can tell, the filmmakers who do BW edits are BIG into the effect of BW. See George Miller’s Mad Max Fury Road “Black and Chrome” edit. Or James Mangold’s BW Logan.

These toon additional work and thought. I don’t think turning the color down on the screen will give you the “pure” experience the directors are wanting you to have. But what do I know?

Just switching a photo from CMYK to greyscale screws up the levels more than I imagine a director with any pride in his craft would permit.

 

[Severian]

^ that is not just turning the color down to zero. At least that’s my opinion on the whole thing. I know fuckall about video though, so blah blah...

Was supposed to see Blade Runner today but my stupid friend bailed on me.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Severian

^ that is not just turning the color down to zero. At least that’s my opinion on the whole thing. I know fuckall about video though, so blah blah...

Was supposed to see Blade Runner today but my stupid friend bailed on me.

yeah youre right esp. in that poster---they also often boost the contrast for bw prints (i read up earlier, post-question, was gonna put up link)

BUT ive seen stills of both mists and they seem prety close--have not seen movie but both sets of stills look equally dark

that spider gif above does not look particularly constrasty--unlike mad max. nice soft grayscale, all the midtones.

a bit of tweaking should satisfy in that case i think. the mad max one is obviously a very distinct grading tho.

im having a night of insomnia so trying to type quietly here (slow w/ no kboard). but yeah.

[!@#$%!]

eta left is desaturated right is black and chrome

 

but was reading about the process of turning color film into bw print and its more complicated--they do manipulate color also before desaturating, the same way that a color filter would change a bw (film exposure by altering the part of the spectrum that provides luminance.)

so a lot more science into that. not sure what the mist dude did. BUT considering how most people watch tv, might not matter much for a home dvd.

[!@#$%!]

ok here it is: looks a little contrastier (esp brighter whites) but not dramatically "black and chrome"

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/32819...s-edition-the/

[demonrail666]

Yeah, thinking about it, there must've been some heavy work done with things like contrast, at least during the more atmospheric scenes. Although I'd say the film ultimately works more at the level of ideas, and story-telling, than aesthetics Certainly the release of a b&w version doesn't suddenly make the colour one redundant. It's more just a cool alternative.

Either way, fans of heavily Lovecraftian horror (I know Severian's into it) should definitely look out for The Void and The Mist.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

eta left is desaturated right is black and chrome

 

but was reading about the process of turning color film into bw print and its more complicated--they do manipulate color also before desaturating, the same way that a color filter would change a bw (film exposure by altering the part of the spectrum that provides luminance.)

so a lot more science into that. not sure what the mist dude did. BUT considering how most people watch tv, might not matter much for a home dvd.

Yeah, I was watching a video about color grading in modern digital cinematography the other day, and it’s pretty intricate stuff. The whole “look” comes from the grading, which takes longer with digital because you’re dealing with raw images, that suck up all the information in the color spectrum. Film apparently doesn’t work like this (not sure why), but is more expensive to shoot with and more expensive to edit. I guess.

Pretty interesting. Apparently all the Marvel movies since Iron Man 2 have been shot using the same grading method, which is digital and very low on contrast, giving the movie’s kind of a blanket “muddy” (too much raw info, not enough saturation and contrast) which I had not previously noticed.

So yeah, taking an effective color movie like Fury Road (TONS of grading in that thing) and simply flipping the saturation down wouldn’t do the trick. Or it would, but it would probably be nigh unwatchable because the adjustments made for color would still be present in BW, and it would probably lead to a bit of a mess.

[!@#$%!]

well yes and no---about the last part. a good picture must always work in gradations of light and darkness. so just desaturating a good color picture doesnt make a mess, and often works just fine. desaturating wouldn't revert to the flat raw file. the left side of the picture above is less awesome than the right side but hardly "a mess."

reason raw works so different is that film already came embedded with its own pregrading--you had fast film, slow film, high contrast film, etc. you could always refine later but it came with a kind of limiting preset.

the awesome thing about raw vs compressed digital is that you can manipulate the file absolutely without destroying the image at all--impossible with prosumer cameras and earlier codecs. (but soon we'll get there--in the consumer/prosumer i mean).

but anyway yeah since raw is infinitely tweakable, because all the original information always remains, all you really care about is not burning your whites or crushing your blacks-- hence you shoot for the middle and *that* looks a mess ungraded

[!@#$%!]

anyway speaking of film-film finally saw THE LOVE WITCH

 

which at the beginning looks like an homage to 60s/early-70s softcore pornography maybe, then you realize-- no! it's more! and you think "occult murder mystery" but no! midway it turns into a carnival of insanity that you didn't expect!

loved it really, highly impressed with anna biller who wrote, produced, directed and edited this-- usually those projects are a clusterfuck of incompetent narcissism but here it was the brilliant execution of an unusual vision. and isn't that what one wants from art?

and yeah it was shot on film. they did a great job of reconstructing an old film look and they made the main character look especially amazing. great great movie really and totally not what i expected-- campy but serious and smart at the same time.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

well yes and no---about the last part. a good picture must always work in gradations of light and darkness. so just desaturating a good color picture doesnt make a mess, and often works just fine. desaturating wouldn't revert to the flat raw file. the left side of the picture above is less awesome than the right side but hardly "a mess."

reason raw works so different is that film already came embedded with its own pregrading--you had fast film, slow film, high contrast film, etc. you could always refine later but it came with a kind of limiting preset.

the awesome thing about raw vs compressed digital is that you can manipulate the file absolutely without destroying the image at all--impossible with prosumer cameras and earlier codecs. (but soon we'll get there--in the consumer/prosumer i mean).

but anyway yeah since raw is infinitely tweakable, because all the original information always remains, all you really care about is not burning your whites or crushing your blacks-- hence you shoot for the middle and *that* looks a mess ungraded

Well I watched one video on the internet, soooooo pretty sure I’m an expert now.

[Severian]

 

Holy fucking wow. Just... wow.

[noisereductions]

Ugh I need to get to the theater soon for that. It's killing me.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by noisereductions

Ugh I need to get to the theater soon for that. It's killing me.

It kinda bombed at the box office I guess, but I attribute that to the R-rating, the cult nature of the fan base for the original, and on the runtime (2 hours and 44 minutes... it’s long, though it doesn’t feel long).

Anyway, I walked out of the theater thinking, “If that movie doesn’t get nominated for Best Picture, then the only reason is that the world will have ended before noms can be announced.”

But now I wonder... Forbes calls it a “total bomb” and the Rotten Tomatoes score is down from 98% to 89%.

STILL... I was absolutely blown away. I read a negative review from some bullshit website called “Little White Lies,” where the author seemed to have been watching a completely different film than the one I was watching. It comes up almost immediately if you Google the movie, but I’ve never heard of the place.

Anyway, key demographic is old nerds like us, but younger generations would be remiss to not soak this movie up.

I can’t even really process it all yet, but I think Debis Villeneuve is... (gasp) ... actually — possibly — better at cerebral thrillers than Christopher Nolan

I know... *my* Christopher Nolan! That’s not to say Blade Dunner 2049 is better than Dark Knight (not), but I think there’s a bit more finesse In Villeneuve’s VERY Nolan- and Kubrick-esque touch.

I will have more to say about this for sure. But in short ...

Blade Runner 2049 is not only my favorite movie of the year (keep in mind I have not seen Dunkirk), it’s the best attempt at rebooting a sci-fi classic. It leaves The Force Awakens in its dust. And Star Trek. And Fury Road.

But BR was never as big as those films, so it can’t be expected to outperform them. But anyone with a brain will find that the only negative about this movie is possible the backache you get from watching it in an uncomfy chair (worth it).

Deserves a Best Picture nod for fucking sure.

[tw2113]

I should try to watch the original Blade Runner soon. I think I've seen it, but never absorbed any of it enough to consider myself as having watched it.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by tw2113

I should try to watch the original Blade Runner soon. I think I've seen it, but never absorbed any of it enough to consider myself as having watched it.

watch the version without the voiceover
it's the best version
i forget the name-- there are many many many versions
but that one is the one
unless there are multiple versions of that lol

eta yeah go for the 2007 "final cut" i guess

which i havent seen i think ha ha ha (but now i wanna)

failing that go for the 92 directors cut