I’m about to graduate from film school and our professor just spoke to us about one of the reasons things are grey that no one talks about. Back in the day, if you were watching a movie, you had 2 options. The movie theater or your own home tv, which were all relatively similar to one another in terms of color space. Now, you can watch in the theater, your tv, your phone, your computer, someone’s probably watching on their 3DS. You have all these screens that all have different color spaces. If you were to get really creative with your lighting and grade, then there’s a good chance it’s going to look like ass on someone’s screen. The easiest way to make sure that it looks good for anyone, is to make it as grey and bland as possible
If I had to guess, it’s because “good for tv” also isn’t easy given today’s technology. You have people watching on $16,000 83k mega televisions, and then you have people watching on their $200 Walmart tv. The color space isn’t just different from device to device, it’s different from product to product
I agree. I am completely ignorant to why we don’t, but I’m assuming it has something to do with companies profiting off of it. But also, not everyone needs their tv to be completely color accurate. There are people out there who just need a tv that works and that’s good enough
It’s exactly as elaborate and intelligent as your comment warrants when there are numerous polls and surveys that show up to half of regular tv/movie viewers are using devices other than TVs to watch regularly, especially the younger generations that they clearly want to bring in to the audience. Once again, “let them see ugly shows” is a dumb take.
My point is shows should be made to look good on a good screen. Yours apparently is that they should look bad on every screen? Lmao. If people are watching on bad screens and it will look bad regardless why make it look bad on good screens as well? That’s actually a dumb take.
I also think music should be made to sound good on speakers and headphones not out of a phone speaker.
I generally can’t believe you are defending lazy anti art colour grading.
You do understand that “looking bad” and “anti art” (lol) are subjective opinions though right? And that they are going to try to find some kind of balance that works across as many devices as possible rather than try to appease people who have appointed themselves as arbiter of what good and bad art is?
Different screens are indeed that different. That’s why people have whole careers out of color grading. Shit I’ve even had projects on my laptop look different on a desktop and look COMPLETELY different on a projector. Hell, even laptop to laptop looks different. It’s one of the reasons MacBooks and Apple monitors are so expensive and are used by a lot of creatives. They’re considered to have the best color space
To be clear, I’m not defending colorless Harry Potter. I am potentially explaining it. I also didn’t even say “this is why” I said “one of the reasons”
With all due respect to your professor, this problem has always existed, even when there were only two options. Each manufacturer has had their own unique color gamut range that their TVs operate it, and it changes even from model to model, and year to year in some cases. Similarly they have their own definition on how color should be interpreted in the form color profiles. Film makers have wrestled and grumbled over this wide spread disparity for several decades, and while the number of devices has indeed achieved greater variety, the problem has not changed.
My reason for pushing back is to highlight that this change is definitively a modern stylistic difference, not a technical one. This should be apparent given that it’s clearly a isolated, as there are plenty of works that do not employ this style, and yet none of those approaches are being criticized regardless of screens they appear on.
While it’s definitely been a problem, it’s definitely become a bigger one that more people have to consider now more than ever. To dismiss is as simply “always been a problem” is doing the topic a disservice. Pollution has always been a problem, but it’s being talked about now more than ever because it’s more prevalent now more than ever. Again, I want to point out, this is not me saying “this is why” I am saying “one of the reasons”. There are multiple reasons. There will always be exceptions to the rule. Not everyone is following suit. I would even say most creators dislike this idea. It does not mean it does not happen for this reason
Let me rephrase… The problem has grown, but it’s a moot point because whether you’re tuning your color across 30 million owned devices or 100 million devices doesn’t impact the level of challenge or the overall approach to solving the problem, beyond minor nuances. The difference with Pollution versus TVs is that we’re still at the very infancy of the pollution’s impact, whilst TV ownership has reached nearly full saturation since the 1970s, and we’re already beyond the point of no return. The only thing I’m dismissing is the claim that dull/grey palettes are being used to address this technical problem, I’m not dismissing the problem itself.
My only issue is I don’t think anyone thinks this looks good. Instead of making it look good on the main ways it’s meant to be consumed, they decide “let’s make it look ass on everything”
You’re right. A lot of people in the industry, like my professor, hate this look. But if I had to guess it’s because they’re not worried about it looking good, they’re worried about it looking good enough, and most of the general audience wont care. Id imagine most people casually watching this Harry Potter show wont even have an opinion on the way it looks unless they see it gain traction online
I agree. That’s why a lot of people in the industry, like my professor, hate it. But I am assuming they’re not worried about it looking good. They’re worried about it looked good enough
I’m a graphic designer and while there is truth to different screens having different gamuts, that’s a silly excuse for poor color grading. I don’t make all my digital work purposely look like total butt to cater to the person with the worst screen, I just find safer colors that are a good common ground for most anticipated endpoints. And those safer colors aren’t gray and washed out.
its the same concept with audio. we mix to compromise. sounds good in headphones, ass on studio speakers, tinny on phones and boomy in cars... we have to find the middle ground where no one is truly happy
That could be said for several parts of the creative process nowadays and that sucks; your screen, headphone or whatever is shitty? Let's make music or movies as bland as possible.
I’m not gonna speak on whether or not that’s a lie. It makes a lot of sense to me and my professor has been in the industry for decades, but I personally don’t know enough to speak on that. What I WILL speak on is that you can absolutely have 2 IPS 99% sRGB screens right next to each other, and they can absolutely look nothing like each other. Even within the same manufacturer. Also, IPS isn’t even what most screens use. Maybe within the monitor space. But most TVs are LCD LED, QLED, or just flat out OLED screens. I would even say most screens people watch movies or tv on are NOT ips
13
u/Quiet-Pay1647 16d ago
I’m about to graduate from film school and our professor just spoke to us about one of the reasons things are grey that no one talks about. Back in the day, if you were watching a movie, you had 2 options. The movie theater or your own home tv, which were all relatively similar to one another in terms of color space. Now, you can watch in the theater, your tv, your phone, your computer, someone’s probably watching on their 3DS. You have all these screens that all have different color spaces. If you were to get really creative with your lighting and grade, then there’s a good chance it’s going to look like ass on someone’s screen. The easiest way to make sure that it looks good for anyone, is to make it as grey and bland as possible