Laserschwert said:Two words: Color correction
I'm curious to know, is that De-saturation?
Laserschwert said:Two words: Color correction
AtomicAge said:I'm not particularly thrilled with what was done here. The highlights have been blown out even more than they were, the blacks have been crushed, and the whole image sharpened, giving the whole thing a rather unfilm like look. In fact it reminds me of over processed video.
Doug
Not only that. Although I've also desaturated the image (and shifted it a little more towards a cooler blue), the most important changes were getting rid of the glow-filter and bringing the mid-tones down a bit.IndyFan89 said:I'm curious to know, is that De-saturation?
Laserschwert said:It's hard to pick any reply to my color-(re-)correction, so I'll just go with your's
First of all when you look at the image on a calibrated monitor you'll see that the highlights are not really blown out (and they weren't in the movie itself either)... the detail there is about 98% intact after my changes, I've been careful with that. The same goes with the blacks. I agree that the concept isn't perfect yet, and for TV-output I'd have to take a bit of the contrast out again. Still I feel that my changes mimic the looks of the trilogy quite nicely. Of course the image got sharpened, but with quite a large unsharp-mask-radius, to get rid of that terrible glow. So technically there's no edge-enhancement used that can be found in those screenshots (but I still have to find the correct balance for the unsharp mask ) Furthermore the midtones were raised to a terrible amount, that and the glow filter were probably just used to make Harrison look younger (less wrinkles... which worked). But that dreamy glowy look isn't how and "Indiana Jones"-movie is supposed to look. The trilogy was shot with fairly harsh contrasts and desaturated colors, and I think trying to fix the terrible grading (as far as that's possible) would already make for a better movie.
A negative side-aspect of the grading was quite an "unreal" look to a lot of scenes, which - as already stated - appeared like being CG, although they weren't.
Udvarnoky said:I just want to reiterate that I find it highly unlikely that Ford's age had anything to do with the filtering. It definitely strikes me as an aesthetic choice run amok.
Udvarnoky said:I just want to reiterate that I find it highly unlikely that Ford's age had anything to do with the filtering. It definitely strikes me as an aesthetic choice run amok.
Major West said:We have no proof of this one way or the other. What we do know for a fact is that soft filtering and pro mist filters were often used in the 40s,50s,60s, and 70s for close up shots on film stars to hide blemishes and advancing age.
Major West said:Now a film set in the 1950s might the be ideal place to use such an old fashioned style and get away with it.
IdahoJones said:Hello everybody. Ive got the two disk DVD but I cant find any commentary? Did I just miss it?
WeAreGoingToDie said:Spielberg doesn't do commentary on his films, but you'll find the production journal has MORE than enough inside info, going scene by scene down the production timeline.
sandiegojones said:It's funny to see so many scenes that were filmed "live on the set" which the haters claimed was CGI.
IdahoJones said:Hello everybody. Ive got the two disk DVD but I cant find any commentary? Did I just miss it?
Major West said:Just for curiosity I wanted to see what one of the previous films would look like in the similar Vein to KOTCS. Just knocked these up very quickly.
Udvarnoky said:If it was a technique truly done specifically for Ford's age, it's not only cowardly...
StoneTriple said:I certainly don't get the feeling they were ever trying to hide his age, not even remotely. In fact, his age is a significant part of the story. It's addressed seriously as well as comically. His age is clearly visible all the time.