The Digital processes: Have they changed the look of Bond IYO?

chrisisall

Films used to be straight up film. Some dye colour correction here, optical effects, fades & whatnot. Now with post being mostly digital, there's literally nothing they can't change on a whim. But in many instances the end result looks, well, digital to me...
A few years ago in my Photoshop class I learned just how difficult it could be to take a pristine digital image & MAKE it look like a film image. There's an art to it. But it also takes some time.

I've been comparing Bond from the 20th Century to Bond of this Century visually, and I think you can really spot a different look of the films beginning with DAD (not the crappy CGI- though there is that)... each film in succession looks a bit more 'digital' to my eye; a sharpness here, a strange contrast there, unusual colour bleaching or replacement...
I notice the same thing when comparing the latest Indy film with the older ones.

Is it just me? Anyone else see this?

Thunderpussy

Not me ! )
I've loved the look of CR and Skyfall, the only problem with QOS was
The scenery was so drab, so didn't look very good on screen ( only my
opinion).
Also Digital is the future, you might as well jump on board and get inventive
With it or maybe your films will begin to look dated etc.
People spoke out against "Sound" when it came to the movies, I'm certain
Some complained about colour being introduced.
So to quote Q, " It's called the future, get used to it !" -{

AlphaOmegaSin

How would everyone feel about Bond in 3D?

Thunderpussy

X-( I'd hate it, Big time X-( , I think it's still just a gimmick dug out by
Hollywood every few decades. Now I-max is different. I'd love to see
Some scenes in Bond filmed in i-max ( as in the Batman films) some of
The set pieces look fantastic! {[]

AlphaOmegaSin

I concur -{ Last Time I saw a 3D Film, I had a Headache for two Days after

Thunderpussy

It wasn't something with Gwyneth Paltrow in it, because that might not
Have been the fault of the 3D. )

AlphaOmegaSin

I think it was something with Adam Sandler

Thunderpussy

) Ah 1 I think I can see why the Headache might have happened. )

superado

chrisisall wrote:

Films used to be straight up film. Some dye colour correction here, optical effects, fades & whatnot. Now with post being mostly digital, there's literally nothing they can't change on a whim. But in many instances the end result looks, well, digital to me...
A few years ago in my Photoshop class I learned just how difficult it could be to take a pristine digital image & MAKE it look like a film image. There's an art to it. But it also takes some time.

I've been comparing Bond from the 20th Century to Bond of this Century visually, and I think you can really spot a different look of the films beginning with DAD (not the crappy CGI- though there is that)... each film in succession looks a bit more 'digital' to my eye; a sharpness here, a strange contrast there, unusual colour bleaching or replacement...
I notice the same thing when comparing the latest Indy film with the older ones.

Is it just me? Anyone else see this?

Have you watched the Bond series digital restoration featurette in the Blu-ray and last DVD set? Very interesting and a great selling point that opened my eyes (figuratively and literally speaking) when I noticed how my first DVD Bonds looked blurry in comparison. Supposedly they worked with the original negatives when possible, though the transfer process wasn't an exact science and a lot of the editorial decisions were made by the restoration team and to that I would wonder how much each of those technicians were initiated in color theory for the period of each Bond movie, etc., etc., vs. a technician using their subjective view on what a certain hue would look like.

Then, for the other half of the equation, I wonder how the first generation reels of the earliest Bond movies looked like on a premier movie screen? If you're like me, you would have grown up watching Bond on VHS and of course the broadcasts on network TV, but those were only as good as the quality of the source film used for the broadcasts and of course for home video, including Laser Discs; in that featurette, they mention how the source film would fade and accumulate layers of dirt, scratches, etc. and these are the copies they use for broadcasts and video transfers! In addition, the resolution of regular TV sets is another factor to consider and if you lived with a dad like mine, you'd think that the picture setting is fine until he walks into the living room and says, "there's too much red hue..." lol.

Would anyone know if the recent films were filmed in digital format? In regard to film quality, speed, grain and all those good things, I would think that there would be a discernable difference with digital footage and because current movies use more and more digital effects for aesthetic and practical purposes (altering backgrounds and objects in the distance), blending film and digital footage becomes another issue to consider.

chrisisall

Digital restoration is different from digital post production. One is clean up & the other is producing the finished image.

dr. evan-gelist

Yes, they've gone from actors who look like Bond (except Moore) to one who doesn't.

Gassy Man

I'm a big fan of technicolor films of the 1950s and 1960s. To me, cinema hasn't looked all that good afterward and lost the "larger than life" quality that led to the conclusion that "the stars didn't get bigger, the movies got smaller."

Color is arguably better today than it was in the 1970s and 1980s, but I still don't think movies today really have that "big screen" quality they once used to. They mainly look like TV shows with a bigger budget, and some are even filmed that way, with lots of close ups, shaky cameras, and few of the sweeping vista shots of the past epics. That would include the Bond film series.

James Suzuki

I felt Skyfall retained that swooping wide shots of Macau and Istanbul that reminded me of the old Bond films. The action I was pleased with. It seemed like Mendes was aware of the whole 'shaky-cam' faze bought on by the Bourne series

superado

chrisisall wrote:

Digital restoration is different from digital post production. One is clean up & the other is producing the finished image.

They do have "digital" in common )

Anyway, my point was, perhaps the original films when brand spanking new had a similar glow to modern, digitalized films, possibly even more so than the digitally restored versions. My other point was, because of the new, digital techniques that are now standard, they can't help but go fully in and I think it's possible for them to get lost in the process and not notice how unnatural the product has gotten.

They went through the same process with b/w movies with unrealisitcally strong contrasts and similarly did this with Technicolor with coloring and tinting more vibrant than nature to best exploit the medium, because each era's medium requires an approach unique to its qualities.

AlphaOmegaSin

The current Showings on ITV4 are restored Versions. Although I see no Differences between these and my DVD's on comparison.

Thunderpussy

James Suzuki wrote :

I felt Skyfall retained that swooping wide shots of Macau and Istanbul that reminded me of the old Bond films. The action I was pleased with. It seemed like Mendes was aware of the whole 'shaky-cam' faze bought on by the Bourne series

+1, I though Skyfall had some of the great vista shots of the older films. {[]

chrisisall

superado wrote:

They went through the same process with b/w movies with unrealisitcally strong contrasts and similarly did this with Technicolor with coloring and tinting more vibrant than nature to best exploit the medium

This is a very good point, thank you. {[]

Napoleon Plural

I would have thought having the sound in digital is another problem. GF for instance has a vibe in analogue, it is about the sexy depth of the sound, whereas in digital it sort of grates, same as the difference between The Beatles on vinyl and on CD, what you gain in clarity you lose in warmth and sex appeal.

AlphaOmegaSin

Napoleon Plural wrote:

I would have thought having the sound in digital is another problem. GF for instance has a vibe in analogue, it is about the sexy depth of the sound, whereas in digital it sort of grates, same as the difference between The Beatles on vinyl and on CD, what you gain in clarity you lose in warmth and sex appeal.

As bad as listening to them without Earmuffs! )

Thunderpussy

Sadly the speakers on my telly aren't great, so until I get round
To upgrading, I probably wouldn't hear much of a difference.

AlphaOmegaSin

Sure thats not the old Hearing going? :v

Thunderpussy

Pardon ? )

AlphaOmegaSin

) )

Blackleiter

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

How would everyone feel about Bond in 3D?

I have seen very few films where 3D added anything useful to the experience (with exceptions such as Avatar, Pacific Rim and Guardians of the Galaxy). In fact, I'd say in most cases the 3D effects are more annoying than anything else. I normally would not pay the extra money to see a 3D version of a film, but in many instances I am taking my teenaged grandchildren with me and they seem to enjoy it. All that is to say that I don't have any particular interest in seeing a 3D Bond film.

Thunderpussy

Instead of 3D, they should be mounting cameras to the new flying drones, to get some
Amazing shots for the action sequences . -{

Gassy Man

James Suzuki wrote:

I felt Skyfall retained that swooping wide shots of Macau and Istanbul that reminded me of the old Bond films. The action I was pleased with. It seemed like Mendes was aware of the whole 'shaky-cam' faze bought on by the Bourne series

It's still different, though, in part because movies today try to jam so many shots into a few seconds, whereas older films often took their time so you could take things in more. The camera didn't always have to move, and if it did, it could move more slowly. This is not always true, but more modern films often are less interesting in what's in the background than what's in the foreground than a lot of older films.