I feel like, if I ever started throwing pre-built looks at a scene with the client they would be cautious of my skill set. But its there and keeps the consistency and overall tone on par. Its sometimes being as subtle as a composers variation of the theme score in a scene you weren't aware you were hearing the theme music.
But a "Colorist" not only creates that look but can keep it consistent scene to scene for up to 120 minutes and do it accurately. We all know that anyone can create a decent look on one frame of one shot with the available tools these days whether its with a LUT or freehand. As Juan mentioned, its much more appropriate to assist the client and guide them to a look organically through well thought out discussion that fits the mood of the show even if that means taking an extra few minutes to build a look from scratch. I think its fine if you are in the room by yourself and there's a scene that's not working to get another idea for it but I think when you just start applying looks in a client session it can often times show a lack of confidence and hence turn things south. What i have found most relevant to the conversation is the thought that Juan mentioned, about using LUTs as a way to throw ideas at your client having a potential negative effect. So if you want to create a story with an emotional address so precise that some of your viewers might need to seek therapy, you are going to need to have your technical house in order. Doing those things well increases the precision so that your viewer's brains laser-focus on the feelings you want them to feel. Using technology poorly clouds the address and causes the consciousness to wander around. But I could find it faster if you said it a street address, or even faster with longitude and latitude coordinates.Īdding, sound, visuals, 3D, motion feedback, interactivity, etc to you stories all increase the address precision. If I lose my phone today, it's probably accurate to say that it's in "Milwaukee, Wisconsin". Some addresses or more precise than others. A story is a way of conveying an address in the brain's emotion map, which points the viewer's consciousness to that location and results in those feelings being experienced. I think the way storytelling works is that the brain has, stored inside of it at different "addresses", every emotion that could be felt. I personally agree with the spirit of what Pepo is saying, but I also think in order for new ideas or techniques to have a long-term place in our toolset, at a basic level they need to respect the same physical laws our vision is based on.Īs someone who loves the way good stories make me feel, and also a gearhead, I've had to think a lot about this issue.
Otherwise why would we bother with things like specularity, sub-surface scattering, ambient occlusion, depth of field, etc?īoth were also surprised when an application like Instagram was sold for a billion dollars, in an environment where it's difficult to get customers to consistently pay even a fraction of that amount for tools that are actually technically sound. He and Mike Seymour both disagree with the current trend of "If it looks good, it is good" saying the only way to really advance imaging technology is to make sure it agrees with actual physics as much as possible. He said they work very hard to make those plugins, as well as any other applications they work on, as technically accurate as possible. Paul Miller has worked on a number of well-known visual effects applications, one of them being a set of physically accurate Tiffen Filter plugins.
#COLORCAST JOBS FREE#
Click to expand.This exact debate (technical rigor vs free experimentation) was brought up in FX Guide Podcast #265: Paul Miller On Creating VFX Software.
0 kommentar(er)
