I prefer the color blue over orange

Zachadoodle

Zachadoodle

Well-known member
I can understand how videographers are told to stay away from a blue look going instead for a more saturated orange look, but that hasn't really suited my palette. To me James Cameron's films have that nice bluish look especially in films like Terminator. Blade Runner has that look too. Looking through my footage, I find it looks a lot less like a hot mess when the white balance is cooler. I like it when images look more blue than orange.

What is you all's opinion?
 
Last edited:
On a related note, there are a lot of resources/conversations on Hollywood's 'teal and orange' practices you might be interested in researching.
 
Match your camera's white balance to the light source, and worry about shifting it blue in color grading, as the client might prefer accurate white balance as opposed to stylized.

The idea behind the orange teal look is color contrast, as lack of luma or chroma contrast yields a two-dimensional, dull, and boring image.

You can light for color contrast for client work once you're more experienced, and have a scene that calls for it.

Bear in mind that you're watching a digital version of those movies, likely on an uncalibrated monitor, which might have a digital color grade and a completely different look from the original film print.
 
Imamacuser said:
Match your camera's white balance to the light source, and worry about shifting it blue in color grading, as the client might prefer accurate white balance as opposed to stylized.

The idea behind the orange teal look is color contrast, as lack of luma or chroma contrast yields a two-dimensional, dull, and boring image.

You can light for color contrast for client work once you're more experienced, and have a scene that calls for it.

Bear in mind that you're watching a digital version of those movies, likely on an uncalibrated monitor, which might have a digital color grade and a completely different look from the original film print.
Click to expand...
That's true. Accuracy in color is more important than style.
 
Zachadoodle said:
That's true. Accuracy in color is more important than style.
Click to expand...
Only when it is. Meaning: if you have a mandate from someone else to deliver accuracy, like a product or logo, then that sets the bar. If it's a creative project, you can do what you want with it.
 
On that note, I doubt that anyone actually likes Sony colors, although they've gotten better over time. I like Nikon colors, as I find them pretty neutral and accurate, but I think Canon messes up reds, and is a pretty far cry from accurate.
 
Imamacuser said:
On that note, I doubt that anyone actually likes Sony colors
Click to expand...
I dislike blanket statements like this. Please define what you mean by "Sony colors".

I have half a dozen Sony cameras and they all look different. And each of those cameras has the ability to dial-in a virtually unlimited number of looks, scene files, picture profiles, or whatever you want to call them. So, when you say "Sony colors", that is really a meaningless concept unless you are talking about judging a camera right out of the box with no changes.

As experienced professionals know, but a lot of younger people don't understand, Sony cameras are not designed to give you a great look right out of the box like some other manufacturers. Sony prefers to provide a more neutral blank slate that can be built upon to suit one's individual tastes, rather than giving you a more baked-in look that is harder to undo or override if you don't like the look you have been given by the manufacturer.

Saying that you don't like Sony colors is a little like saying you find the seat in your car uncomfortable, but you haven't taken the time to make any adjustment to the positioning.
 
It is worth noting that the Sony Venice series has been the first to seriously challenge the Arri Alexa since its introduction as camera of choice for many high-end projects. Obviously the color science therein is doing something right!
 
I've had a handful or two of opinions about cameras over the years - learning, criticizing, yo-yo-ing back-and-forth until paralysis by analysis - and these days I think the Sony color science (all color science) is fine mostly because no one notices it/cares and there's so much other stuff going on that it makes it trivial, but it's also important to consider which of the movies using the Venice are not backed by Sony.

At first, almost all of them were from Sony studios, maybe a true final push to really break and stay in Hollywood with their cameras, but now it seems its momentum has resulted in more interest all around.
 
I haven't had need or opportunity to use a Venice myself, but I know a lot of DP's who use them regularly on non-Sony jobs (commercials etc). It's a well-liked camera. It was a long stretch between the F35 and the Venice and it didn't seem like Sony was likely to get into a competitive place with Arri, but they did it.
 
Doug Jensen said:
I dislike blanket statements like this. Please define what you mean by "Sony colors".

I have half a dozen Sony cameras and they all look different. And each of those cameras has the ability to dial-in a virtually unlimited number of looks, scene files, picture profiles, or whatever you want to call them. So, when you say "Sony colors", that is really a meaningless concept unless you are talking about judging a camera right out of the box with no changes.

As experienced professionals know, but a lot of younger people don't understand, Sony cameras are not designed to give you a great look right out of the box like some other manufacturers. Sony prefers to provide a more neutral blank slate that can be built upon to suit one's individual tastes, rather than giving you a more baked-in look that is harder to undo or override if you don't like the look you have been given by the manufacturer.

Saying that you don't like Sony colors is a little like saying you find the seat in your car uncomfortable, but you haven't taken the time to make any adjustment to the positioning.
Click to expand...
For clarification, I was referring to DSLR/Mirrorless cameras that lack Multi Matrix adjustments, and don't come close to aligning with a DSC Labs OneShot Rec.709 chart in any of the picture profiles/styles. I know I didn't specify that, but I thought it was kind of implied, since Zach uses a DSLR.

Part of Sony's problem was gamma & gamut mapping from log, hypergammas, and cinegammas to Rec.709, but Resolve's color management eliminates those issues today.
 
Imamacuser said:
I know I didn't specify that, but I thought it was kind of implied, since Zach uses a DSLR.
Click to expand...
No it is not implied unless it was mentioned in the thread somewhere, which I don't think it was. And I'm pretty sure he owns a Canon, so not really sure how your slam against "Sony colors" was relevant in the first place.

Furthermore, hypergammas, and cinegammas are already Rec.709 so they don't need to be mapped to something that they already are.
 
Imamacuser said:
For clarification, I was referring to DSLR/Mirrorless cameras that lack Multi Matrix adjustments, and don't come close to aligning with a DSC Labs OneShot Rec.709 chart in any of the picture profiles/styles. I know I didn't specify that, but I thought it was kind of implied, since Zach uses a DSLR.

Part of Sony's problem was gamma & gamut mapping from log, hypergammas, and cinegammas to Rec.709, but Resolve's color management eliminates those issues today.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do use a Canon T2i. In an ironic way you could say that this could be about my camera's colors. Despite that, mainly this was about preferring a blue look over a saturated look. I'm of course referring to the look of science fiction films of the 1980s thinking of how the futuristic blue look those had. It's reflective of any camera in an attempt to give a discussion of what sort of colors people prefer in camera irregardless of the camera. Here is a frame from a movie I like that had the blue look I was referencing.
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    331.5 KB · Views: 7
Zachadoodle said:
Yes, I do use a Canon T2i. In an ironic way you could say that this could be about my camera's colors. Despite that, mainly this was about preferring a blue look over a saturated look. I'm of course referring to the look of science fiction films of the 1980s thinking of how the futuristic blue look those had. It's reflective of any camera in an attempt to give a discussion of what sort of colors people prefer in camera irregardless of the camera. Here is a frame from a movie I like that had the blue look I was referencing.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with you. I much prefer the bias towards blue as opposed to the orange / teal look. To that end, purely for my own amusement and viewing, I re-graded one of my old faves. Ridley Scott's 2007 Blade Runner - Final Cut, back to the color palette he used in 1992's Blade Runner - Director's Cut. I like film grain, but I didn't like the video noise inherent in the 2007 BD release. So applied some NR during the upscale from HD to 4K. Again, might as well get hung for sheep as a lamb. :D

I also reworked the multi-track audio, again for my amusement, to obtain the best separation and audio placement of the various sound elements when listening to the film in a stereo environment. Though mindful that it must still work well in a surround sound environment.

Chris Young

This shows you the original color grade differences between the two cuts.

A sample of my CC re-grade of 2007 back to 1992's color palette.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top