Thread: The Crown BTS

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,524
    Default
    Looks very interesting, but too expensive to justify for the very little use I would get from it.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    94
    Default
    I think it helps to have watched some of the The Crown before watching this fascinating BTS. It’s spectacularly beautiful. Hard to believe how the sausage is made.

    One thing that struck me in the BTS was how unflappable Adriano Goldman was in all situations. There are scenes where crew are practically standing on his toes while he’s waxing lyrical about his work, apparently having no difficulty concentrating. I wouldn’t be able to string a coherent sentence together in such circumstances (and in my native language, to boot).

    Good stuff.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    985
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Jensen View Post
    Chris, are you sure the Tiiffen software is really necessary? I graded this version of your original in about a minute using Resolve. It would have been even faster if just chose whatever I liked and wasn't trying to come close to the look of your Bronze Glimmer. I think I've reduced the hot spot on his forehead even better than the Tiffin filter.
    Agreed Doug. Anything you can do can in DFX be achieved in many decent NLEs but it takes longer. I like it when I have a new dithering producer sitting next to me who's not at all sure of what he wants his production to finally look like that in a very short amount of time I can assault his senses with a variety of 'looks'. You can get them to something they like very quickly, bang, bang bang. I cannot offer a host of manual grades with glows, diffusion looks, color grades, etc in a few minutes. I have to take time to create them. Not much time for the simpler ones but still time. DFX is like going to a tailor who can show you the color, feel, and look of a range of materials quickly. Off the peg grading, I call it. Where I found it useful is grading archive material in history docos to try and get a particular feel, tint or look quickly by just flicking through ten, twenty "camera" filters, and film looks to fit the mood the producer wants.

    Chris Young


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,524
    Default
    Chris, you speak words of wisdom. Time is money and anything that speeds up the process for you in post or makes dealing with clients easier is probably worth the expense.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,234
    Default
    Surely there's a difference in the effect achieved by glass in the optical path vs a digital after-effect...? Although perhaps not enough for those of us who need to work quickly and cover our asses to care


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #16
    Senior Member Run&Gun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,225
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ahalpert View Post
    Surely there's a difference in the effect achieved by glass in the optical path vs a digital after-effect...? Although perhaps not enough for those of us who need to work quickly and cover our asses to care
    And another thing, “digitally” it’s non-destructive, so you haven’t made an irreversible choice and baked it into the camera original footage, which with today’s indecisive producers and directors, is probably a good thing(for them). Personally, I like doing a lot of things in-camera, you know, like properly exposing the shot and choosing the correct white balance, which many think is the domain of post, now too. Also, personally, I’ve never been a huge fan of “soft fx” filters, because too many people go overboard with them when using them(too strong).


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,524
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Run&Gun View Post
    Also, personally, I’ve never been a huge fan of “soft fx” filters, because too many people go overboard with them when using them(too strong).
    I agree with that attitude for today's cameras. But back in the day of my Ikegami HL59 Betacam I kept a Tiffen Soft/FX 2 discreetly screwed onto the front of my lens 100% of the time. I never took it off and clients and other crews (on multi-cam shoots) could never figure out why my camera always looked so much nicer than all the others, especially the Sony D600. The filter, combined with some tweaks to the circuit boards took that "video-edge" off the picture just enough, while still keeping eyes and details sharp. It was a time when the "Macie look" was all the rage in New England and I thought it looked awful (too muddy) so I took the side panel off and painted the camera myself. Back in those days you couldn't just export a scene file so it made it easy not to share the secret sauce. I used Macie for my repairs, but I'd never let an engineer touch my picture settings. Of course all that changed around 2005 when I got my cheap little Z1U and it clearly blew the doors off the $60K Betacam. What we all thought had been good enough turned out to look like s*%t. Never looked back.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    985
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ahalpert View Post
    Surely there's a difference in the effect achieved by glass in the optical path vs a digital after-effect...? Although perhaps not enough for those of us who need to work quickly and cover our asses to care
    When first tried DFX I didn't try glimmer Glass but I did with Promists, both black and white. The same shots with the glass and with its digital equivalent are virtually indistinguishable. You know how good a look you can get with a good grade of RAW or LOG with or without a LUT. The grade hasn't 'damaged' your picture in any way. You've just rearranged pixels and luminance and color values. Same with DFX. DFX's filters are just 'looks' in the true sense of the word. Created by very experienced graders when Tiffen had the package developed. As I said they were so good that the rumor was that they were losing sales on the optical filters once the word got out that these DFX filters were that good. The other thing with the glass is if you commit to a 1/8, 1/4 or 1/2 filter that is exactly what you get. A certain fixed amount of diffusion, glow or whatever that filter is imparting to the look and feel of the shot. It is then 'baked in' in a similar way Rec709 colors are. With a filter's digital equivalent all its parameters can be modified very subtly if required. Once modified save it as a new preset should you wish to come back to it.

    Look below and see your Promist selections alone. There are 18 rows of Promist equivalents. All of which can be manipulated in a wide range of parameters with the very intuitive sliders on the right. Fully tuneable as compared to a 'baked in' look which if a client doesn't like at a later stage leaves you pretty well screwd. Look from an artistic POV I like working with glass but that's my desire my wish. From a practical and pragmatic and financial point of view, this commercially kills the glass. Added benefit? Never had to deal with flare on the filter with the digital ones

    Chris Young

    DFX Interface Warm Pro 8.jpg
    Camera sample.jpg
    Camera sample + Promist.jpg


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #19
    Senior Member Liam Hall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Worldwide
    Posts
    3,393
    Talking
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Jensen View Post
    I agree with that attitude for today's cameras. But back in the day of my Ikegami HL59 Betacam I kept a Tiffen Soft/FX 2 discreetly screwed onto the front of my lens 100% of the time. I never took it off and clients and other crews (on multi-cam shoots) could never figure out why my camera always looked so much nicer than all the others, especially the Sony D600. The filter, combined with some tweaks to the circuit boards took that "video-edge" off the picture just enough, while still keeping eyes and details sharp. It was a time when the "Macie look" was all the rage in New England and I thought it looked awful (too muddy) so I took the side panel off and painted the camera myself. Back in those days you couldn't just export a scene file so it made it easy not to share the secret sauce. I used Macie for my repairs, but I'd never let an engineer touch my picture settings. Of course all that changed around 2005 when I got my cheap little Z1U and it clearly blew the doors off the $60K Betacam. What we all thought had been good enough turned out to look like s*%t. Never looked back.
    Why would you purposefully set-up your camera to have a different look on multi-camera shoots and then not share that info so the producer could get a consistent look? Good grief, I'd have had you fired:-D
    "There is nothing permanent except change."
    Heraclitus

    www.liamhall.net
    TWITTER: @WordsbyLiam
    INSTAGRAM: @picsbyliam


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,524
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Liam Hall View Post
    Why would you purposefully set-up your camera to have a different look on multi-camera shoots and then not share that info so the producer could get a consistent look? Good grief, I'd have had you fired:-D
    It ensured my camera would always be the A camera. The other cameras were never going to match no matter what was done on location because in those days painting the cameras had to be done by taking the side panel off and using a screw driver to turn pots on the board. If other people had foolishly paid an engineer to tweak their camera to have a muddy look, that was their business and they weren't about to undo it. It was a far different era than today where scene files can be shared. And in the end, yes we were all friends, but also competing for the same work, and the "look" of my camera was proprietary and gave me a competitive advantage. Plus I was an outlier shooting on Ikegami instead of Sony, which almost everyone else was using in my area, so there's really no way in hell their cameras could ever match anyway. I was doing about 225 shoots per year in those days and less than 10-20 involved multiple cameras, so I'm hardly going to give away information that makes it easier for competitors to compete the rest of the year. In the end, this is a business and you have to treat it that way sometimes.
    Last edited by Doug Jensen; 12-13-2020 at 05:22 AM.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •