[Tig] Premature Death of SR

sklein54 at earthlink.net sklein54 at earthlink.net
Thu Mar 24 17:13:01 GMT 2011

   Well written Martin, but I.M.H.O nobody knows the difference at home.  

   Don't we really only bust butt for 10 or 12 people who get it and care on
   every project? The end-viewer out there somewhere isn't a consideration.
   They dont have the gear, don't know the difference, and could not possibly
   care  less.  If  you  'A-B' between  before (suck) and after (bitchin)
   for viewers at home they can see it, but in context when the picture fades
   up from black and they can see the folds in Scarlet Johannson's top when she
   bends down it's all good. 

   Love my trade, the checks keep clearing and I take the sporadic exceptions
   as gravy.

   It's not about the gear, it's just that nobody knows the difference at
   home...they never have.

   Thanks for listening and have a great day.

     -----Original Message-----
     From: Martin Sansom
     Sent: Mar 22, 2011 2:38 PM
     To: tig at colorist.org
     Subject: [Tig] Premature Death of SR
     Sohonet http://www.sohonet.co.uk sponsors the TIG.
     Digital Vision is patron of the TIG.
     Marquise Technologies supports the TIG.
     Colorist Directory at http://tig.colorist.org/wiki/Category:Colorist
     Interesting discussion but in my opinion the aesthetic appreciation of the
     images we deal with has been overlooked.There has been a magnificent irony
     in the last thirty years since I started as a colourist, there was a time
     when engineers, telecine operators, online editors et al would work long
     hours into the night extracting fractions of a percentage of performance
     improvement out of analog components in order to get the best out of the
     film that the image had been acquired from and the CRT domestic television
     that the viewer watched at home, it was the creed to constantly raise the
     bar in terms of image quality because the acquisition and distribution
     devices were capable of displaying more than the post production devices
     could process. That's all changed now, it's flat screen compressed digital
     hell, the viewer watches TV on a device that comes nowhere near the look
     of a CRT television and now with digital acquisition colourists spend more
     time faking the film look ( more artificial grain anyone? ) just as well
     we have these fancy do everything colour correctors, i need all those
     windows and plug ins in order to con the viewer (and the client) into
     believing that the image they're watching has more dynamic range that it
     actually has, rarely do I finesse a look from film anymore, instead I have
     to drag it kicking and screaming from a camcorder on steroids.
     Television audiences, the final arbiters of our work, have dumbed down
     their expectations of us and what we do, apparently they would rather have
     a thousand channels of artifact laden digital mush than sumptuous high
     quality imagery, and we, the purveyors of those images have likewise done
     the same, apparently for the same reason, we've always been under the
     thumb of the bean counters but the ongoing argument on here shows in my
     opinion that the accountants have hijacked my gamma curve and I can't
     afford the ransom.
     Martin "might as well grade it on a Kindle" Sansom.
     Colourist at large.

More information about the Tig mailing list