|
|
Post by pixelpuffin on May 13, 2023 5:19:16 GMT
I too was chasing this “cinematic still” look a few years ago. I actually started a thread on the old AP forum.
My interpretation is the image is colour graded but with deeper blacks?? darker shadows?? A slight contrast boost with the colour saturation/tone carefully monitored.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevewmh on Jun 19, 2023 21:03:06 GMT
The movie " Asteroid City" has kind of got me thinking about the whole cinematic thing. The pastel colors and low contrast looks kind of odd by modern aesthetics, I'm also not sure how long one could sit through the movie without the odd color profile causing some detachment from reality.....maybe that's the whole purpose. Intersting color profile anyway. Not that easy to recreat. Sort of somewhere here  |
|
|
|
Post by John Farrell on Jun 19, 2023 21:12:39 GMT
The movie " Asteroid City" has kind of got me thinking about the whole cinematic thing. The pastel colors and low contrast looks kind of odd by modern aesthetics, I'm also not sure how long one could sit through the movie without the odd color profile causing some detachment from reality.....maybe that's the whole purpose. Intersting color profile anyway. Not that easy to recreat. Sort of somewhere here View AttachmentOther forums have comments about a camera featured in the film - a renamed Kiev. |
|
|
|
Post by Chester PB on Jun 21, 2023 12:02:18 GMT
Most 'film stills' are really shots taken with an 'ordinary' camera, because a still from the cinema film would probably not be sharp enough. For a 25 frame per second film, each frame would usually be 1/60 of a second. So if the subject and/or the cine camera are moving the image may be blurred. If you can record a film from a TV transmission to a hard-disc recorder, you can probably go through a scene frame by frame to show this. Your brain will will convert a series of slightly blurred images at 25 frame per second to a moving image that will look sharp.
The wide screen processes most commonly used were 1.85:1 with 35 mm film, in which the 1.33:1 frame image was cropped, either in the camera or during projection. In the latter, we sometimes saw microphones at the top of the frame on old 1.33:1 TV screens because the frame was not cropped to 1.85:1 as intended. The other commonly used process was 35 mm 'anamorphic' in which specialist lenses 'squeezed' the image from 2.33:1 to 1.33:1, which is why people look very thin on the frame of film before it is projected and 'unsqueezed' back to 2.33:1. There were also formats based on 70 mm wide film, with and without anamorphic processing, for which I believe the 'widest' ratio was 2.70:1.
I suspect that the 'cinematic' look may just be the processing images to simulate images from old films. Ironically, the reduction in colour intensity and contrast that pretend to do this for colour shots often end up merely emulating images from films in which the emulsion has not survived well. For an example of this, I refer you to the versions of 'Vertigo' that used to be shown on TV with the 'restored' version in which every frame was scanned and the colour intensity corrected.
|
|
|
|
Post by don on Feb 13, 2024 13:24:59 GMT
I read the article and went onto a link mentioned for The photographer and filmmaker Natascia Mercurio www.natybtw.com/what-i-do/?term=3&orderby=date&order=desc itself it’s informative. I wish I was able to do something in this genre but my project days are long gone. 😔 poor Don is feeling sorry for himself 👍🤣 |
|
