When I watched the short film for the first time, what immediately jumped for me was how the difference in set design can change the whole experience, in the short with a more "real life" set and lightning Fletchner seems more like a regular asshole teacher. But in the feature film, the bigger budget allow them to create an special room with an specific atmosphere to it, one that feels like you are entering a whole different level from the practice room of your school, it made Fletchner this larger than life figure and now you are in his domain.
I remember this being levelled at Star Trek: TNG. In the series, the sets were well lit and very open. In the movies, i.e First Contact, the set was really dark. But it added depth and atmosphere to the movie.
It's an interesting idea to consider watching the short film after the feature. You start to wonder maybe if even the audience was duped into thinking Fletcher is more than he actually is. At the end of the day, maybe he really is just an asshole.
I'll save you the time. The reason why short films look different than featured films is that short films often use cheaper equipment, directors use everyday items for set designs, and little to no color manipulation. Basically, feature films have big budgets and can afford to hire professionals to craft every detail.
@@TheAlison1456 They don't have access to compelling set locations, meaning they need to use common spaces. Therefore, no amount of color grading and manipulation will make their movie stand out. Also, most of the actors and most of the crew aren't professionals, just people the directors or producers can find on short notice. In short, short films don't have a dedicated team in most instances...which translates into a less polished appearance. It's the same with indie music. Indie music isn't "bad," just not on the level of professional productions, due to the lack of professional equipment, recording spaces, and engineering.
@@TheAlison1456 Unfortunately, short film directors are questioned/critisized when they apply unnatural looking colors and extreme low lighting in their films. When its done in a feature film people pay for it and watch it in theaters without questioning or thinking about what's the necessity of such unnatural colors and extreme low lighting photography throughout the film
Great video but I think the issue on short films are budget and set design obviously comes into that as does location hire and lighting constraints. Natural light and windows are cheap. Once the sets are lit then costs go up exponentially not just in crew and equipment but in time on set. This difference is purely down to cost. It’s just about cost and every short film has that constraint. It’s hard to grade daylight to become too stylised without it looking forced. Nothing new here but we’ll put together. Thx
Now do "The Whiplash short film but it's yellow". It would be really cool to see how different color grading would change the feeling of the short film. But seriously, this is a great summary of the importance of various aspects of filmmaking that many tend to ignore.
@@justinchey2281 This was quick and dirty, but I was curious too, so I took about 10 minutes to regrade the short film. While it's not the best, scene-by-scene color grading, the results speak for themselves. If this bares a resemblance to any of David Fincher's projects, it's no coincidence, I'm a massive fan of those sickly teal and yellow palettes. ua-cam.com/video/lPgT7XRiF6k/v-deo.html
Would not work, the lighting is different. Contrast ratio in the short film is non existent and the light is bouncing around from everywhere because its not controlled.
@@JJ-zo7jv it depends on the color grading, if you let a professional colorist grade a film, you would be looking at a higher level film because an industry professional has worked on it. But thats is not what he said, he said slap a filter on it and most viewers would not know the difference. Thst is incorrect becase lighting is a lot different and the mood and tone will never look the same. Not to mention that one scene is shot in the evening or night and the other is shot during the day with HUGE windows visbile in the shot. That yellow look during the day time would create a totally different feeling or golden hour or something like that. No way in hell they can look those 2 scenes look the same.
@@Yodd he’s not saying they wouldn’t know the difference in comparing the two films. He is saying the audience wouldn’t know the difference between watching this film and a professional film. And if that’s the case, he’d be correct. Because besides color grading, the shirt is still good.
I think that the distinct yellow light and color grading that Whiplash is known for is one of the most defining characteristics in it's appearance and aethsthetic. Whiplash is a dim, dramatic, tense, loud movie, these themes are contrasted by a dark yellow, black, brown atmosphere. It's warm, but not cozy. The darkness and heat make it feel crampt and uncomfortable, you can feel the pressure of the characters, the sweat dripping down their faces, the blood on the drumset. It all contributes to envelope the viewer in the universe and surroundings of the movie, Whiplash would not be nearly as impactful without it. Look at the short film, the entire movies affect has been cut in half.
Would have been more interesting if it was black and white with only the brass of the instruments popping out as isolated color. That truly would have made the movie stick out even more.
@@KRAFTWERK2K6 Remember when movies strived to capture natural colors, and the "look" of the film was less important than the ACTION/STORY in the film? I can count on one hand how many films have achieved notoriety through wonky color grading. The two biggest contenders arguably being _The Matrix_ and _O Brother Where Art Thou?_ But what about all these films that insist on muted colors, teal/orange grading, etc? They were as quickly forgotten as they were released. In contrast, look at the dozens of films over the last 50 years that achieved worldwide noteriety, yet didn't have any wonky color grading. _Lawrence of Arabia, Jurassic Park, Back to the Future, Star Wars, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Few Good Men, Rio Lobo, Shane, etc.._ on and on. I could list dozens of Technicolor films that have stood the test of time. None of them relied on artsy fartsy color grading to stand out. They stood out with their stories, performances, cinematography, direction, etc. The last 20 years of film has barely been able to produce anything notable. Meanwhile the list of famous films between 1950 & 2000 is virtually endless.
@@sixstanger00 Yup, Hollywood in particular is very notorious for same-looking dozen-ware and movies as a form of entertainment and storytelling have really stagnated badly. I sometimes wonder why? Did digital cinematography make everyone lazy and boring? Or maybe it's the arrogance and the Egos of so many in the movie business that makes them go like "let's just play it safe and use the same ingredients as usual.".. Most of my favorite movies are from the 80s, 70s and also from the EARLY days of cinema up until the late 1930s. I'm a huuuge sucker for silentmovies because they were still VERY much aware of film being a visual medium for storytelling without too much distraction.
I've been going through the comments thinking the same thing, so you're not alone. A few are commenting about whether the script is also made with AI as well as sounding like one.
Another very interesting point not discussed here is how acting works. We all know what looks or feels like an act and what feels natural. All of these vary over time. Watch a movie from the 70s and the colors are usually just "natural". Watch a movie from the 30/40s and the acting might seem uncanny, even if acting almost never looks or feels like real-life. Now you can list all the exceptions you have seen 😁
The dark backgrounds of the feature film really help highlight the relationship between Fletcher and Andrew, there's nothing to get lost with in the background and its just them 2. It also helps give us a feeling of understanding with Andrew and how he is overwhelmed and focused on him. Even more so because Fletcher is almost always wearing black so there is nothing else to look at but his stare. Finally I always loved how the only color in the band room was yellow as if the room was just emitting the brass color of the instruments.
Lighting is often a key component - the ability to shape light takes both skill and often equipment resources that beginning film makers lack. The ability to color grade - even on a budget - with tools like Davinci Resolve being economically available to basically everyone - is a bit easier to accomplish. The short you show above looks like absolutely no thought or attention went into the color grade - it looks rather garish and video-like - a bit of effort there could have vastly improved the richness of the image. Even fixing lighting in post is becoming easier with the amazing sophistication of Resolve - as well as improving the look of even low-budget cameras...
it's not about no effort. Clearly the footage has been colored and somebody put some effort into coloring it, but unfortunately it wasn't a Hollywood level colorist or even a professional one. Most likely that the editor himself, who knew how to use davinci, colored it, hence the result being "video-like". But it was still colored, nonetheless
@@honeyflow9450 No one is trying to be harsh, just honest. The color grade was too amateur. The director clearly had a good story and ability to direct actors. Not so much a Cinematographer or DP. Adding those elements changes so much.
@@heartspacefilm it’s shocking how poorly informed these comments are. Have you any idea the gear they used or who is starring in it. It would have been fully crewed on an absolute professional level and the best kit used. It would have been an obvious priority to get the performances to tell the story as anyone can light and stage for a feature film once there is a feature budget. That js why shorts are just not approached in a Hollywood studio style look. The blocking etc is almost identical because they had time.
@@heartspacefilm sure but the implication that this look happens because of a lack of talent or experience is nonsense. It is wholly intentional and strategic. A nutless monkey can push that image towards a teal and orange or whatever. I am sure that it’s shot on an Alexa and that everything was an intentional choice to prioritise flexibility of shooting and capturing performance versus look. By far the biggest pull for the shoot would have been to get JKS on board and to maximise his time. The writer would want to show the studio that he can get a performance out of a top actor, as it’s the central role of two. All fully intentional.
This more or less explained my quarrel with Alice in Borderlands. The set design is stylised, the costume design is alright, the characters are highly stylised, so why is it that I feel like something is off? Turns out, it was the lighting and colour grading.
Great video! I also noticed similar differences while watching the short film Curfew, and later it's full-length version, Before I Disappear. You have very concisely and simply answered a question for me. Thanks, man!
A short film version of this UA-cam video would have been nice. In addition to a few instances of odd pronunciation and misplaced emphasis, the script was a great demonstration of teasing out a short answer into a 12-minute answer. I gave up at the halfway point, which was apparently two minutes before they finally got to talking about lighting.
I also think like when you watch a short film it on average lasts 30 minutes. A feature film on average has between 75 and 210 minutes. The time you have, to settle into the theme and the setting of the film is much less in a short film. Thus a realistic (no distinct yellow tint) color palette allows you to quickly get yourself settled in while a distinctly different look depends on you adjusting to it. I hope it makes sense to you who is reading this. For example a news show where everyone wears jedi robes or looks like the alien from the Alien movies is harder to get used to than a show where people wear standard human clothes like a suit or jeans
Great video, very well thought-out and incredibly educational. Can't believe no one else has noticed the AI Brooks Moore/How It's Made voice, though lmao. It's super convincing
@@jakesequeira9284 It's a thousand percent AI. 2:03 listen to the way he says "Sundance" -- no native speaker who is aware of film would say it this way. There are also numerous notable AI quirks all over the speech. Pay attention to the ends of sentences and phrases, you'll hear it.
How does this have 1 million views but provide so little actual depth. You just basically say "the color grading was good lol" - BUT WHY? What makes it good? Throwing adjectives around isn't specific.
Short films typically are not color-graded to within an inch of their lives, and typically have a more natural look with less grading and more natural light. Less "heightened" and more of a documentary look. I enjoy both looks at different times.
I've been producing short films for a while and this video very much helps. My newest short film we're producing looked quite cinematic to me, and it was actually all in the color grade and camera quality. (That aside, I do believe the five points you covered are all crucial) All my old shorts were filmed on iphone, which lacks a lot of depth and clarity. Also, a lot of my color grades either a) didn't exist, or b) were cheap and tacky. I often slapped grades on without thinking, and ended up butchering the look of the short. So I believe that a bad color grade is worse than no color grade. That newest short that I thought looked very cinematic was filmed outdoors on a Canon DSLR. The lighting was incredibly diffuse as it was cloudy that day, so the whole sky was one big softbox light. The Canon DSLR was a huge step up from the iPhone, and really lent to the overall look. However, the real standout thing was the color grade I added, which looks very similar to the golden-green shades used by the Whiplash film shots you demonstrated. The film was in a forest, so the sunset looks with the gold highlights and greener shadows was quite appealing, as it matched the natural look of the forest quite well. That aside, I do believe that each shot requires a different aspect to shine through. All shots require costume design, set design, and at least a DSLR camera to look very good (iPhone _can_ look good, but it's tricky), but the lighting and color grade are what makes or breaks a shot. However, in some cases, color grade is more important; in others, lighting is more important. However the two work in tandem, overall making both - in my opinion - the most important aspect of cinematic footage.
Great points! An upgrade to a DSLR where you can change lenses and achieve different focal lengths is a huge difference from a smartphone camera. A good color grade can further enhance the story as you said, and it's best when it's used in tandem with the lighting on the set.
@@movieluts Oh, I also must ask: did you use ChatGPT to write the script of this video? It sounds a lot like ChatGPT's wording to me. Pardon me if I'm incorrect.
You're right, bad color grading is worse than no grading at all. I see a lot of bad color grading in modern film and TV. Just because you CAN color grade, doesn't mean you SHOULD. The example that comes to mind is the remake of Hawaii Five-O. The original show did it's best showcase the vivid, bright colors of Hawaii, in part because they wanted to show off the new color TVs. Drab colors wouldn't look very different from black and white TVs. This wouldn't convince people they needed to buy a new color TV. You can see this in a lot of late 1960s television shows. Anyway, fast forward to 2010, and color grading is edgy. All the brilliant colors of Hawaii have been sucked out. The show has low color saturation, and it's graded towards more greenish drab hues. It's awful! The worst choice ever for a show that takes place in the beautiful state of Hawaii. This is one reason why I never watched more than two episodes. The color grading similar to the fluorescent lit office scenes in The Matrix. It made sense in that case.
I wish this wasn't read by ai. Very good video with excellent points. Just wish I had a personality attached to it. Someone I can relate to read it. Hearing an AI voice just through my focus off. Thanks for taking the time to make this though.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed. It was probably written by AI too. The way it followed the intro with dictionary definitions of short and feature length films is really unnatural and unnecessary.
It is so useful. Can you make another video about short film making?
Рік тому+53
The color grading on the short was precisely done in my non expert opinion. The set is a room illuminated by natural light. Overdoing some orange cast for example would look out of place. So, I’d say the grading matched what the short was able to give during production. I think the most overseen technicalities in a budget movie must be lighting. Camera and lenses might be expensive, but lighting and rigging sets? Probably even more expensive than a camera and a set of lenses (sure, not talking about Arri or Cooke lenses😊).
The set being changed to a theatre sound stage also brought in the element of light and dark , and the DP and colorist could guide the viewer's eyeballs using power windows and dodge and burn. So I do agree what you said - if the colorist graded the short in that classroom with the warm tones of the practicals in the other location, it would look ridiculous. But then the adds for their luts at the end - they do just that. The Joker look was not all color grading. Yet after all the explanations of the locations in the video - you show a nurse and put the "Joker" lut on it - which in my opinion looked terrible.
Рік тому+1
@@JimRobinson-colors the green cast grading on “The Joker” scenes when talking to the social worker/psychiatrist, and in hospital works for showing the gritty atmosphere, and because the practicals are fluorescent lights. A lot of fluorescent lights have this green cast characteristics and it’s easy to extrapolate that on the grading, different than a daylight cast that is neutral. But yes, if they wanted to, they could have graded more neutral, but would lose the gritty looks that matches with the psychotic mind of Arthur Fleck.
@ You missed the point. I wasn't referring to the "why" in the Joker, only that the colorist wasn't grading on a neutral canvas, she had set design, costume and lighting to aid in the actual grade. The adding of LUT at the end is not how any of these movies are graded. And contradicts a lot of what was said in the video.
Рік тому+1
@@JimRobinson-colors I was just adding to your comment, further explaining to the average viewer the why it works there. And yes, totally agree with what you just said Jim.
Experience is key, you got that right. I am often struggling to find the right sound resources, e.g. finding a composer who fits the project and budget but also finding the right voiceover talent, which you solved brilliantly here. Would be lovely to see you share your experience gained in such a video. If you were to include credits, e.g. listing the VO talent, you would also help filmmakers like myself.
Is this AI script made and read? a disclaimer would be nice, feels kinda manipulative, especially when you're selling luts. feels very greedy and low effort without a disclaimer.
This was a great watch, especially for an aspiring DP/gaffer. Also, I happened to love both the short, and the feature. Very rarely are feature films so true to their short film source material. Great film essay!
I think numbing down short films to just a step below feature films is an exaggerated way of seeing things. There are filmmakers who decide on doing a short instead of a larger story. It all depends of what you want to show to the public. I don't believe the color grading in the short film is bad, could it be enhanced entirely by having a bigger budget and more experience? Maybe, but there are details in Chazelle's work on his short film that I believe can't be numbed down to "short on money and experience". He's telling the story with different elements and people in each. You can't just say that because there's a more "simplistic" design in general to the naked eye, it's worse. There are other elements being used.
Рік тому
Well, in this case, this was kinda shot as proof of concept short film to get the feature and it shows. I saw many short films that look on par with feature films.
I think a major part of what makes short films feel more amateur or lower budget is the camera work itself. You can tell in the short film that shots were either hand held and so partially shaky especially with angel changes mid shot, or it is just stuck on a tri pod. The feature film clearly has very nice gimbles or computer assisted camera movements as shots are steady and there is no shake even with pans. Also shots that are steady are typically from a bit further of a distance in the feature film and we never get any foreground blue like the cymbal in the short film.
Really? Awarding someone pushing a slider to orange-teal (if not downright just pressing a button), because they somehow learned that natural colors are bad and now all looks the same? Phew...
@@snitheads Not really. If I see a movie with a car driving through the night an the light the car shines is blue I immediately know it's fake. If I see a teal tinge while it's broad daylight, I know it's fake. If people have teal skin color when not in direct light, I know it's fake. And if someone activates a Fleshlight and it's green, I know it's fake. Awarding breaking the immersion without even the intention of breaking the immersion, that's embarrassing.
Short film DOPs and colourists are not often the same people who are paid to make feature films. More feature film DOPs and colourists are more experienced, and therefore have earned the confidence to be able to make bold decisions without distraction.
To explain what I mean a little clearer, it's not really even a lack of talent in short films, it's more to do with confidence. Often when people have less experience and are less sure of themself, they will tend towards "safer" choices.
The dark and yellow, almost "smoky" blur athmosphere choice is easy to understand, it creates the kind of ambiance you can find in concert rooms, piano bars and cabarets, i.e. the kind of places people associate with jazz music, so that everything reminds you the kind of mental universe the protagonists evolve in.
Honestly prefer the short’s visual style, that’s what college classrooms actually look like. Also, the high color saturation of the feature is a bit much sometimes.
I worked with the DP on the short and it was a pitch for the feature. He is also friends with the director of the feature. They switched DP for the feature because the DP of the short was not that well known yet. That is why the short also has shot for shot scenes.
Short films can look every bit as good as their feature counterparts - it's just a time, money, and skill thing. After all, commercials are short films and they often have budgets, per second, higher than features.
I honestly like the look of the short film of Whiplash more, I actually used it as inspiration for my own feature film. For some reason the movie looks cheaper to me, and more minimalist.
Pretty sure it is. There's delivery is very consistently flat all the way through and the way it says "set design" sounds off in a way a lot of text to speech usually is.
You know, I came to the comments because I wasn't sure it was AI at first. But after several minutes in, it's obvious. The cadence starts off sounding natural enough, but the pronunciation is just too consistently "off" that it's not attributable to normal variation in speaking. The way the word "design" is always pronounced the same odd way, with a slightly rounded and lengthened vowel in the second syllabe, as well as the fact that the narration never puts emphasis on the word "set" in "set design," the way anyone familiar with filmmaking would, gave it away for me. There are other tells involving syllabic emphasis such as "stylized" and "contrasting." Particularly, I think a human narrator would usually say "SHORT films" more often "short FILM," especially when contrasting them with "FEATURE fims" (which is emphasized correctly). There are also some places where the script likely omitted a comma, such as "warm moody colors."
I feel like short films have this more "alive" feel to them because most of the times people who are making them are really passionate about what they are making wich results in a pretty good looking product. Sadly the same could not be said about most big budget movies and even games nowadays.
Would this be an even more prominent issue when shooting digital as opposed to film? I assume shooting on film you’d pick a stock which gives you the tones and color balance you’re looking for.
Some people still prefer film over digital, but in todays age you can achieve a lot with digital, even fake it to look a lot like film. Of course it's not gonna be the same, but it is close.
This was a fantastic video and really helped a lot! One thing not mentioned though is subtle shot changes, where the frame in the feature includes more of the expensive set than the short like at 3:00 for example
Good video, one thing about modern color grading though, including the other films showcased in this video, is that I feel like they need to dial the intensity of the grade down by about 15%. Modern grading feels too consistently saturated for my tastes, especially when it's applied across the whole film. I don't mind it for certain scenes though, for example the intense orange of Vegas in BR 2049 served a very specific purpose. And as someone who spent the late 2010's in California, a very familiar look (wildfires).
Anyone who needs a rundown of everything he just said: There is a TL;DR at the end but I highly suggest you read all of this in full. 1. Set design: this effects the look of a short film due to its simplicity because of a smaller budget and with a simple set, comes a simple look along with natural lighting from the windows which brings me to the next point. 2. Lightning: because short films are on a tight budget they can’t afford much lighting equipment and in that leads to the use of a LOT of natural lighting which contributes to that “short film look”. Such as the cool white shining through the windows in the Whiplash short. 3. Color Grading: this is the most important aspect of it but let me explain two things first. There are two different settings commonly used with DSLR cameras and those are “RAW” footage where is takes the most info it can from what it is recording leading to bigger file size and “LOG” recording which leads to smaller file size and a more flattened-grayish look to the recording so in post production it is easier to manipulate the colors. Now, I don’t personally know which kind of format Damien Chazelle chose but I personally think he shot the short film in RAW leading to..well..the “raw recording” kind of feeling. Again, due to the tight budget I don’t think he could have afforded a big time colorist to make the film look like how the feature did. AND the inexperienced filmmaker doesn’t necessarily know everything about color grading in Premiere Pro or DaVinci Resolve now. TL;DR 1. Set Design: tight budget = simpler set design 2. Lighting: tight budget = natural lighting usage FROM simpler set design 3. Color Grading: inexperienced filmmaker + tight budget = straight from camera footage.
The simple answer is that a compelling film drastically simplifies the visual narrative structure so that the actors performance stands out via distinct foreground and background separation. Every day settings and lighting are chaotic and random, so if they're used as is, there is little to no foreground and background separation; this makes the actors performance and the directorial tone feel flat and indifferent. The simple hack of the feature film version here isn't colour grading, it's replacing white walls lit by omni present daylight, with dark to black backgrounds lit by directional lights focused on the actors only. This creates a frame where only faces and hands stand out in a sea of dark, the only thing the audience considers is emotion; the concept of setting is erased entirely. It makes us feel, "There's you, there's me, and there's the music, and nothing else." Much like a tense police interrogation scene.
"this makes the actors performance and the directorial tone feel flat and indifferent." -> nonsense. i 100% disagree. The case for natural lighting: There are many examples, but one of the most famous ones in recent times is "The Revenant". You don't just color grade everything yellow and get a better movie
in my opinion the differences between the two boiled down to creative differences from whomever was the DP. With that being said I agree, bigger budgets allow more production value and a more experienced team, but the feature look could have been executed with a short film budget for sure. This is a bad comparison to make such a generalization about how short films look. Ive seen shorts that have visually blown me away and also features that leave you baffled at why it cost so much.
It's a money issue. Most short films are shot on a shoestring budget. Which means less money for equipment, which means less sources of artificial light and proper ways to shape light. And if you are shooting on "hybrid cameras" such as the A7S III or Panasonic S5, you'll never reach the image flexibility of even (the super cheap) Blackmagic 4K / 6K. By shooting RAW, you can really bend the image to look exactly the way you planned it. If you try to mess a lot with videos shot on H264, you'll quickly learn the limitations of those files. I'm actually editing a project now where I'm blending 8K RAW footage from the Canon R5C and H264 footage from an A7III, and it's been a real struggle to match the shots. Due to budget being so tight, you end up using more natural light and due to the files having so little flexibility for post, you can't really mess too much on the color grading aspect of filmmaking.
@@Incog80 Not exactly a CON, but MASSIVE FILE SIZES (Every hour I shoot on my Blackmagic 6K G2 at 6K resolution on BRAW I'm getting almost 700MB of space occupied). I literally have to shoot directly to a SSD disk. There's no noise reduction. This is actually pretty good, since you want to do that on post production, but if you're doing fast projects where you just want to edit fast and be done with, some people feel like this is a CON (not for me). Other than these "CONS" (which I don't really see as a CON, just mild incoveniences for some people who want finish projects super fast), shooting RAW is a dream. You get all the information there, you can change ISO and WB while editing, which can be very forgiving if you're doing run n gun style of shooting and you didn't get the perfect settings dialed in while filming. You get the literal "RAW" image. No digital trickery being done on top. And super flexibility and LOTS AND LOTS of information on that image. You can literally change the color of the sky to purple without breaking the image.
@@Incog80 Depends on the camera you are using, resolution, compression rates, etc. You might be able to shoot with a super fast SD Card or maybe you'll need a SSD drive. One of the most common (but quite expensive solutions) are CFast cards. They are as fast as SSD drives, small size, BUT terribly expensive. I can buy 4-6 1TB SSD drives for the price of 1 TB CFast card. It all comes down to your workflow, camera, settings, etc. There's not really a solution that fits all needs, you have to research and find out the solution that best suits your needs :)
After finally getting around to educate myself about color grading, I'm much more acutely aware of color grades in movies, and I detest them more every time. The reason is that being mostly oblivious before I didn't pay much notice, but now it is something that breaks down the 4'th wall. I understand the purpose and how it, as much else in moviemaking is a tool to convey emotion, but it is still takes away the realism. If we found ourselves in a Blue / teal lit room, our eyes would not notice the colored light, we'd white balance it our selves, but on a screen we don't so noticing in a movie what looks like off lighting or colors is a put off. Only case where I think it works, is if the colorgrading is motivated, like Harrison Ford's home in Blade Runner 2049 where it looks natural that everything is orange because of the smog outside.
Fun Fact, the orange/yellow in Blade Runner 2049 is meant to highlight that the protagonist will get new information, for example Harrison Ford is full of new information, hence the orange colors from the smog outside, and the more yellow ones in his house.
This sounds like the Wade C. voice from Wellsaid labs. All of their voices were cloned with the written consent of the voice actors, and they earn royalties every time it is used in a project. Wellsaid studio's highest tier pricing is $200 a month. A 12 minute video with a real voiceover artist of this quality would be at least $300.
Great breakdown, but i am sure the color grading of the short was a creative choice because of the budget constraints in regards to practical lighting and location choice. Grading a scene unnaturally is not really something aspiring filmmakers do if they want to be taken seriously.
A windowless room feels suffocating as it is. And then you have this intense stress before and after the trombonist is kicked out only to have the 2nd chair be the one who is flat. I think implying that the sweat is from the physical and emotional claustrophobia elevates that lit fuse that explodes when the chair is throne. Nail biting tension.
AWESOME video and explanation! Absolutely on-point. Your explanations and sample frames you pulled illustrated your points perfectly. My snap reaction was to say, yeah, well, budget, duh. But going further in-depth, and choosing a film made so similarily in short and feature form really enhanced the reasons bigger budgets make such a big difference.
man, thats a bad bad video. The answer why the feature looked so much different is simply the grading. thats it. Grade the shortfilm the same way and it would look 90% of the feature.
Great stuff - I actually prefer the look of the shorter movie - I think the feature length movie although has a nice red, woody colour to it, I dont think you get as much visual information, which is also framed really well in the clips you showed of the short movie. Also the lead actor in the short movie seems a better choice, he seemed to look more age appropriate and acted really well.
The look of the feature length movie has to do with tone and mood of the scene. You might prefer the look of the short film but the look of the feature is much more in line with the story and the scene.
@@tico5058 while I like the look of colour graded stuff in the bigger feature length version, and the grading when done right, I do feel the colours are too strong in comparison to the short, some of the information is also crunched. The shorter one seems more truer to reality, the performance of the lead actor also seems better. I do like the powerful longer feature length version, but when compared side-by side like this, I prefer the shorter version more.
If you don't think high end camera impact the end result, look at 4:44 where the BTS camera and filmcamera have the exact same lighting and setdesign but have completly different looks! 👍
@@daniellrodriguezs Also it's not graded to match the tone of the movie and lenses are not the same as well, if anything it might just be graded to get a general look for a bts.
Ya'll have very good points! I have worked with both IPhone, midsencor cameras and a RED Epic Dragon 6K on different short films. And what I or the BTS camera (Sony or Black Magic) we had on that short (Dragon 6K) saw to very different things. The lighting on set looked very flat but in camera it looked incredible! Sure you can make it look cinematic with both IPhones and midsencor cameras, but large and/or high end cameras is another beast all together! 🙏 That does not mean that a high end camera is always the best choice for every project.
What it actually comes down to is boldness. on a feature a more experienced director will “we are doing it this way cause it will make the story better” and that’s that. on a short, all the film makers, including the director, are all trying not to make mistakes so they can get hired again. this causes them to look very similar. sticking to the traditional cinema color pallet like it’s law.
the simple answer is: bright walls mean more light bouncing, which creates less sharp and defined lit forms and edges. the answer is truly: control of lighting and color. I just watched both Little Shop of Horrors movies - 1962 and 1986, and the custom sets of the 1986 version, with the dark, low-key walls, ground, etc. make it automatically look WAY more cinematic because you have more control over the light - in the sense of light bouncing, and in the sense of the perceived silhouettes and shapes onscreen. in a way darker environments create more visual focus .
Thank god I'm not the only one going mad. I was thinking this is so weirdly written and narrated. The inflection on of some of the words and the general overall cadence was not how a real person would speak.
“Chat gpt, please make my UA-cam script longer”
When I watched the short film for the first time, what immediately jumped for me was how the difference in set design can change the whole experience, in the short with a more "real life" set and lightning Fletchner seems more like a regular asshole teacher. But in the feature film, the bigger budget allow them to create an special room with an specific atmosphere to it, one that feels like you are entering a whole different level from the practice room of your school, it made Fletchner this larger than life figure and now you are in his domain.
Great point!
I remember this being levelled at Star Trek: TNG. In the series, the sets were well lit and very open. In the movies, i.e First Contact, the set was really dark. But it added depth and atmosphere to the movie.
@@sneakygloworm Gene Roddenberry was in control of that show and I wonder aloud if that is why it was lighted in such a way.
It's an interesting idea to consider watching the short film after the feature. You start to wonder maybe if even the audience was duped into thinking Fletcher is more than he actually is. At the end of the day, maybe he really is just an asshole.
magic
This feels like it was written by ChatGPT
it's an ai voice aswell
Indeed
Yeah, I’m ok with TTS but the script is in this weird uncanny valley where everything is plausible but feels off
Did i just watch a 12 minute ad without an actual answer?
I'll save you the time. The reason why short films look different than featured films is that short films often use cheaper equipment, directors use everyday items for set designs, and little to no color manipulation. Basically, feature films have big budgets and can afford to hire professionals to craft every detail.
Generally yes, but a little forethought can go a long way. Awareness is key to planning. Thought and planning only cost time up front.
that doesn't tell me why short film directors don't manipulate the colors or the color grade, it just tells me that they do. Which I already know.
@@TheAlison1456 They don't have access to compelling set locations, meaning they need to use common spaces. Therefore, no amount of color grading and manipulation will make their movie stand out. Also, most of the actors and most of the crew aren't professionals, just people the directors or producers can find on short notice. In short, short films don't have a dedicated team in most instances...which translates into a less polished appearance. It's the same with indie music. Indie music isn't "bad," just not on the level of professional productions, due to the lack of professional equipment, recording spaces, and engineering.
@@TheAlison1456 Unfortunately, short film directors are questioned/critisized when they apply unnatural looking colors and extreme low lighting in their films. When its done in a feature film people pay for it and watch it in theaters without questioning or thinking about what's the necessity of such unnatural colors and extreme low lighting photography throughout the film
Great video but I think the issue on short films are budget and set design obviously comes into that as does location hire and lighting constraints. Natural light and windows are cheap. Once the sets are lit then costs go up exponentially not just in crew and equipment but in time on set. This difference is purely down to cost. It’s just about cost and every short film has that constraint. It’s hard to grade daylight to become too stylised without it looking forced. Nothing new here but we’ll put together. Thx
Thank you, I agree. Clearly, the lack of budget leads to all the other limitations.
If you watch until 3:39...
It's because a short has less money for enditing
You just summed up the video.....😂
This comment is all that is needed
written and voiced by an AI with no edits to the shit it spat out
Yeah! After a minute and a half in, I had to turn it off. "JONNER"?!? (GENRE)...
Now do "The Whiplash short film but it's yellow". It would be really cool to see how different color grading would change the feeling of the short film.
But seriously, this is a great summary of the importance of various aspects of filmmaking that many tend to ignore.
I was really hoping to see this in the video lol
@@justinchey2281 This was quick and dirty, but I was curious too, so I took about 10 minutes to regrade the short film. While it's not the best, scene-by-scene color grading, the results speak for themselves. If this bares a resemblance to any of David Fincher's projects, it's no coincidence, I'm a massive fan of those sickly teal and yellow palettes.
ua-cam.com/video/lPgT7XRiF6k/v-deo.html
@@davidlegnon9696 Looks AWESOME for “quick and dirty”! Not as intense as an effects as the film but you’re also fighting the sunlight vibe. Nice!
@@davidlegnon9696 great job David Legnon. revealing.
@@justinchey2281 what app or software did you to make it?
This video felt like a highschooler trying to meet a word count requirement on an Essay.... 😴😴
Colour Grading is the only thing that stands out - slap a filter on it and 90% of the audience wouldn't know the difference
Would not work, the lighting is different. Contrast ratio in the short film is non existent and the light is bouncing around from everywhere because its not controlled.
@@Yodd he’s still right, color grading alone is huge and will trick most viewers into thinking they are watching a higher level film.
@@JJ-zo7jv it depends on the color grading, if you let a professional colorist grade a film, you would be looking at a higher level film because an industry professional has worked on it.
But thats is not what he said, he said slap a filter on it and most viewers would not know the difference. Thst is incorrect becase lighting is a lot different and the mood and tone will never look the same. Not to mention that one scene is shot in the evening or night and the other is shot during the day with HUGE windows visbile in the shot. That yellow look during the day time would create a totally different feeling or golden hour or something like that. No way in hell they can look those 2 scenes look the same.
@@Yodd in that instance that’s true
@@Yodd he’s not saying they wouldn’t know the difference in comparing the two films. He is saying the audience wouldn’t know the difference between watching this film and a professional film. And if that’s the case, he’d be correct.
Because besides color grading, the shirt is still good.
I think that the distinct yellow light and color grading that Whiplash is known for is one of the most defining characteristics in it's appearance and aethsthetic. Whiplash is a dim, dramatic, tense, loud movie, these themes are contrasted by a dark yellow, black, brown atmosphere. It's warm, but not cozy. The darkness and heat make it feel crampt and uncomfortable, you can feel the pressure of the characters, the sweat dripping down their faces, the blood on the drumset. It all contributes to envelope the viewer in the universe and surroundings of the movie, Whiplash would not be nearly as impactful without it. Look at the short film, the entire movies affect has been cut in half.
The yellow tint makes
The brass pop
Would have been more interesting if it was black and white with only the brass of the instruments popping out as isolated color. That truly would have made the movie stick out even more.
@@hando- True
@@KRAFTWERK2K6 Remember when movies strived to capture natural colors, and the "look" of the film was less important than the ACTION/STORY in the film?
I can count on one hand how many films have achieved notoriety through wonky color grading. The two biggest contenders arguably being _The Matrix_ and _O Brother Where Art Thou?_ But what about all these films that insist on muted colors, teal/orange grading, etc? They were as quickly forgotten as they were released.
In contrast, look at the dozens of films over the last 50 years that achieved worldwide noteriety, yet didn't have any wonky color grading. _Lawrence of Arabia, Jurassic Park, Back to the Future, Star Wars, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Few Good Men, Rio Lobo, Shane, etc.._ on and on. I could list dozens of Technicolor films that have stood the test of time. None of them relied on artsy fartsy color grading to stand out. They stood out with their stories, performances, cinematography, direction, etc.
The last 20 years of film has barely been able to produce anything notable. Meanwhile the list of famous films between 1950 & 2000 is virtually endless.
@@sixstanger00 Yup, Hollywood in particular is very notorious for same-looking dozen-ware and movies as a form of entertainment and storytelling have really stagnated badly. I sometimes wonder why? Did digital cinematography make everyone lazy and boring? Or maybe it's the arrogance and the Egos of so many in the movie business that makes them go like "let's just play it safe and use the same ingredients as usual.".. Most of my favorite movies are from the 80s, 70s and also from the EARLY days of cinema up until the late 1930s. I'm a huuuge sucker for silentmovies because they were still VERY much aware of film being a visual medium for storytelling without too much distraction.
The white walls actually make a MASSIVE difference im actually so shocked how much the set can really do.
Me too! The details and depth
Am I going crazy or is the voiceover an ai? There's some very strange internations and sounds a bit robotic.
I've been going through the comments thinking the same thing, so you're not alone. A few are commenting about whether the script is also made with AI as well as sounding like one.
Def Ai written, possibly ai voiced too - very repetitive dull, obvious and with very little incite. I got fed up and gave up halfway thru.
The look of a feature film is something quite special and elusive. Very hard to get from "this looks like real life" to "this looks like film".
Another very interesting point not discussed here is how acting works. We all know what looks or feels like an act and what feels natural. All of these vary over time. Watch a movie from the 70s and the colors are usually just "natural". Watch a movie from the 30/40s and the acting might seem uncanny, even if acting almost never looks or feels like real-life. Now you can list all the exceptions you have seen 😁
This videos writing sounds like chatgpt with how structured the explanations are. Not too sure if its a good or bad thing
its bad
depends if chatgpt gives good structures@@Gitars25
This is some of the most natural sounding AI I’ve heard
This video feels like it's been written by a neural network
the voice over is an AI for sure, idk about the script
@@VestigeFinder I mean, it does repeat the same point over and over for 13 minutes straight.
Yes. I thought the same thing.
This video was 10x longer than it needed to be. It comes down to: never shoot on sets with white walls and tint the image yellow to give it a look.
The dark backgrounds of the feature film really help highlight the relationship between Fletcher and Andrew, there's nothing to get lost with in the background and its just them 2. It also helps give us a feeling of understanding with Andrew and how he is overwhelmed and focused on him. Even more so because Fletcher is almost always wearing black so there is nothing else to look at but his stare. Finally I always loved how the only color in the band room was yellow as if the room was just emitting the brass color of the instruments.
Lighting is often a key component - the ability to shape light takes both skill and often equipment resources that beginning film makers lack. The ability to color grade - even on a budget - with tools like Davinci Resolve being economically available to basically everyone - is a bit easier to accomplish. The short you show above looks like absolutely no thought or attention went into the color grade - it looks rather garish and video-like - a bit of effort there could have vastly improved the richness of the image. Even fixing lighting in post is becoming easier with the amazing sophistication of Resolve - as well as improving the look of even low-budget cameras...
ALWAYS a key component, with zero exceptions.
it's not about no effort. Clearly the footage has been colored and somebody put some effort into coloring it, but unfortunately it wasn't a Hollywood level colorist or even a professional one. Most likely that the editor himself, who knew how to use davinci, colored it, hence the result being "video-like". But it was still colored, nonetheless
@@honeyflow9450 No one is trying to be harsh, just honest. The color grade was too amateur. The director clearly had a good story and ability to direct actors. Not so much a Cinematographer or DP. Adding those elements changes so much.
@@heartspacefilm it’s shocking how poorly informed these comments are. Have you any idea the gear they used or who is starring in it. It would have been fully crewed on an absolute professional level and the best kit used. It would have been an obvious priority to get the performances to tell the story as anyone can light and stage for a feature film once there is a feature budget. That js why shorts are just not approached in a Hollywood studio style look. The blocking etc is almost identical because they had time.
@@heartspacefilm sure but the implication that this look happens because of a lack of talent or experience is nonsense. It is wholly intentional and strategic. A nutless monkey can push that image towards a teal and orange or whatever. I am sure that it’s shot on an Alexa and that everything was an intentional choice to prioritise flexibility of shooting and capturing performance versus look. By far the biggest pull for the shoot would have been to get JKS on board and to maximise his time. The writer would want to show the studio that he can get a performance out of a top actor, as it’s the central role of two. All fully intentional.
This guys narration and voice sounds like an employee training video for wal mart or something lol
Chat gippiddy write a script about how better color grading is better
This more or less explained my quarrel with Alice in Borderlands. The set design is stylised, the costume design is alright, the characters are highly stylised, so why is it that I feel like something is off? Turns out, it was the lighting and colour grading.
Great video! I also noticed similar differences while watching the short film Curfew, and later it's full-length version, Before I Disappear. You have very concisely and simply answered a question for me. Thanks, man!
A short film version of this UA-cam video would have been nice. In addition to a few instances of odd pronunciation and misplaced emphasis, the script was a great demonstration of teasing out a short answer into a 12-minute answer. I gave up at the halfway point, which was apparently two minutes before they finally got to talking about lighting.
It's because both the voice and the script are AI
it's like 'how it's made' mashed with video essay's about my favorite thing
I also think like when you watch a short film it on average lasts 30 minutes. A feature film on average has between 75 and 210 minutes. The time you have, to settle into the theme and the setting of the film is much less in a short film. Thus a realistic (no distinct yellow tint) color palette allows you to quickly get yourself settled in while a distinctly different look depends on you adjusting to it. I hope it makes sense to you who is reading this. For example a news show where everyone wears jedi robes or looks like the alien from the Alien movies is harder to get used to than a show where people wear standard human clothes like a suit or jeans
I had no idea Whiplash started as a short film! Thanks for putting it on my radar
It served as a pitch to get movie studios and producers convinced that it would be a great feature film.
Great video, very well thought-out and incredibly educational.
Can't believe no one else has noticed the AI Brooks Moore/How It's Made voice, though lmao. It's super convincing
Its a bit convincing, but like two sentences in, it started feeling really unnatural.
I don't think this is an AI voice, couldn't find anything like it on the market. Any idea what app they use?
I noticed lmao. Glad I'm not the only one
@@jakesequeira9284 It's a thousand percent AI. 2:03 listen to the way he says "Sundance" -- no native speaker who is aware of film would say it this way. There are also numerous notable AI quirks all over the speech. Pay attention to the ends of sentences and phrases, you'll hear it.
The script is also repetitive and lacking in substance, I think the whole video is ai
How does this have 1 million views but provide so little actual depth. You just basically say "the color grading was good lol" - BUT WHY? What makes it good? Throwing adjectives around isn't specific.
Short films typically are not color-graded to within an inch of their lives, and typically have a more natural look with less grading and more natural light. Less "heightened" and more of a documentary look. I enjoy both looks at different times.
ok, but, WHY?!
u allright alison?
He keeps saying the same thing over and over again. This video should have been no more than three minutes.
Right
I've been producing short films for a while and this video very much helps. My newest short film we're producing looked quite cinematic to me, and it was actually all in the color grade and camera quality. (That aside, I do believe the five points you covered are all crucial)
All my old shorts were filmed on iphone, which lacks a lot of depth and clarity. Also, a lot of my color grades either a) didn't exist, or b) were cheap and tacky. I often slapped grades on without thinking, and ended up butchering the look of the short. So I believe that a bad color grade is worse than no color grade.
That newest short that I thought looked very cinematic was filmed outdoors on a Canon DSLR. The lighting was incredibly diffuse as it was cloudy that day, so the whole sky was one big softbox light. The Canon DSLR was a huge step up from the iPhone, and really lent to the overall look. However, the real standout thing was the color grade I added, which looks very similar to the golden-green shades used by the Whiplash film shots you demonstrated. The film was in a forest, so the sunset looks with the gold highlights and greener shadows was quite appealing, as it matched the natural look of the forest quite well.
That aside, I do believe that each shot requires a different aspect to shine through. All shots require costume design, set design, and at least a DSLR camera to look very good (iPhone _can_ look good, but it's tricky), but the lighting and color grade are what makes or breaks a shot. However, in some cases, color grade is more important; in others, lighting is more important. However the two work in tandem, overall making both - in my opinion - the most important aspect of cinematic footage.
Great points! An upgrade to a DSLR where you can change lenses and achieve different focal lengths is a huge difference from a smartphone camera. A good color grade can further enhance the story as you said, and it's best when it's used in tandem with the lighting on the set.
@@movieluts Oh, I also must ask: did you use ChatGPT to write the script of this video? It sounds a lot like ChatGPT's wording to me. Pardon me if I'm incorrect.
@@DestrinProductions *every paranoid english teacher in 2023
@@jgunther3398 LMAO that's so true
You're right, bad color grading is worse than no grading at all. I see a lot of bad color grading in modern film and TV. Just because you CAN color grade, doesn't mean you SHOULD. The example that comes to mind is the remake of Hawaii Five-O. The original show did it's best showcase the vivid, bright colors of Hawaii, in part because they wanted to show off the new color TVs. Drab colors wouldn't look very different from black and white TVs. This wouldn't convince people they needed to buy a new color TV. You can see this in a lot of late 1960s television shows. Anyway, fast forward to 2010, and color grading is edgy. All the brilliant colors of Hawaii have been sucked out. The show has low color saturation, and it's graded towards more greenish drab hues. It's awful! The worst choice ever for a show that takes place in the beautiful state of Hawaii. This is one reason why I never watched more than two episodes. The color grading similar to the fluorescent lit office scenes in The Matrix. It made sense in that case.
I wish this wasn't read by ai.
Very good video with excellent points. Just wish I had a personality attached to it. Someone I can relate to read it.
Hearing an AI voice just through my focus off.
Thanks for taking the time to make this though.
I wish it didn't repeat each point four times with slightly different wording.
i think this video might have been entirely AI generated by chatgpt and an AI voice.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed. It was probably written by AI too. The way it followed the intro with dictionary definitions of short and feature length films is really unnatural and unnecessary.
It was written by AI so I guess it’s only fair it should be able to read it’s own work
It is so useful. Can you make another video about short film making?
The color grading on the short was precisely done in my non expert opinion. The set is a room illuminated by natural light. Overdoing some orange cast for example would look out of place. So, I’d say the grading matched what the short was able to give during production.
I think the most overseen technicalities in a budget movie must be lighting. Camera and lenses might be expensive, but lighting and rigging sets? Probably even more expensive than a camera and a set of lenses (sure, not talking about Arri or Cooke lenses😊).
That’s true. Lighting and set design account for a big part of the film’s look, and they are not cheap.
The set being changed to a theatre sound stage also brought in the element of light and dark , and the DP and colorist could guide the viewer's eyeballs using power windows and dodge and burn. So I do agree what you said - if the colorist graded the short in that classroom with the warm tones of the practicals in the other location, it would look ridiculous.
But then the adds for their luts at the end - they do just that. The Joker look was not all color grading. Yet after all the explanations of the locations in the video - you show a nurse and put the "Joker" lut on it - which in my opinion looked terrible.
@@JimRobinson-colors the green cast grading on “The Joker” scenes when talking to the social worker/psychiatrist, and in hospital works for showing the gritty atmosphere, and because the practicals are fluorescent lights. A lot of fluorescent lights have this green cast characteristics and it’s easy to extrapolate that on the grading, different than a daylight cast that is neutral. But yes, if they wanted to, they could have graded more neutral, but would lose the gritty looks that matches with the psychotic mind of Arthur Fleck.
@ You missed the point. I wasn't referring to the "why" in the Joker, only that the colorist wasn't grading on a neutral canvas, she had set design, costume and lighting to aid in the actual grade. The adding of LUT at the end is not how any of these movies are graded. And contradicts a lot of what was said in the video.
@@JimRobinson-colors I was just adding to your comment, further explaining to the average viewer the why it works there. And yes, totally agree with what you just said Jim.
I prefer the performance of the short film's actor, he's so genuine. Great, great actor. And excellent video, too...subscribed!
Thank you, glad you like it!
interesting to see what a different to color has on the film, to see a visual of what the set looked like without color
Experience is key, you got that right. I am often struggling to find the right sound resources, e.g. finding a composer who fits the project and budget but also finding the right voiceover talent, which you solved brilliantly here. Would be lovely to see you share your experience gained in such a video. If you were to include credits, e.g. listing the VO talent, you would also help filmmakers like myself.
Is this AI script made and read? a disclaimer would be nice, feels kinda manipulative, especially when you're selling luts. feels very greedy and low effort without a disclaimer.
This was a great watch, especially for an aspiring DP/gaffer. Also, I happened to love both the short, and the feature. Very rarely are feature films so true to their short film source material. Great film essay!
Nice video. Great food for thought on what makes the difference when you want to level up your quality of videos.
Glad you liked it!
Thank you for explaining what a short film is ... can you explain what a youtube video is next?
I think numbing down short films to just a step below feature films is an exaggerated way of seeing things. There are filmmakers who decide on doing a short instead of a larger story. It all depends of what you want to show to the public.
I don't believe the color grading in the short film is bad, could it be enhanced entirely by having a bigger budget and more experience? Maybe, but there are details in Chazelle's work on his short film that I believe can't be numbed down to "short on money and experience". He's telling the story with different elements and people in each.
You can't just say that because there's a more "simplistic" design in general to the naked eye, it's worse. There are other elements being used.
Well, in this case, this was kinda shot as proof of concept short film to get the feature and it shows. I saw many short films that look on par with feature films.
@ True, still a great short
Is the narrator AI? Some funny pronunciations of names.
was the script for this video written with the help of AI?
Sounds like it
I think a major part of what makes short films feel more amateur or lower budget is the camera work itself. You can tell in the short film that shots were either hand held and so partially shaky especially with angel changes mid shot, or it is just stuck on a tri pod. The feature film clearly has very nice gimbles or computer assisted camera movements as shots are steady and there is no shake even with pans. Also shots that are steady are typically from a bit further of a distance in the feature film and we never get any foreground blue like the cymbal in the short film.
Is the narrator of this video an AI? There are a few things that have changes in meaning because of inflection that I don't think are intended.
I think color grading is one of the most important parts of a movie. There should be an oscar to the color graders
Really? Awarding someone pushing a slider to orange-teal (if not downright just pressing a button), because they somehow learned that natural colors are bad and now all looks the same? Phew...
@@snitheads Not really. If I see a movie with a car driving through the night an the light the car shines is blue I immediately know it's fake. If I see a teal tinge while it's broad daylight, I know it's fake. If people have teal skin color when not in direct light, I know it's fake. And if someone activates a Fleshlight and it's green, I know it's fake. Awarding breaking the immersion without even the intention of breaking the immersion, that's embarrassing.
@brickify i am curious. Care to elabotate?
@@valeriacaissa4552 what movies are you watching that have a "fleshlight" in it?!?!? lol!
@@Orangeflava Flashlight....
Short film DOPs and colourists are not often the same people who are paid to make feature films. More feature film DOPs and colourists are more experienced, and therefore have earned the confidence to be able to make bold decisions without distraction.
To explain what I mean a little clearer, it's not really even a lack of talent in short films, it's more to do with confidence. Often when people have less experience and are less sure of themself, they will tend towards "safer" choices.
Jesus, was this video written by an AI? I cant believe how many times I heard the exact same sentences with no additional information or context.
The dark and yellow, almost "smoky" blur athmosphere choice is easy to understand, it creates the kind of ambiance you can find in concert rooms, piano bars and cabarets, i.e. the kind of places people associate with jazz music, so that everything reminds you the kind of mental universe the protagonists evolve in.
2:15 "The short film simply looks like a short film." LOLLL, The End, thanks for coming to our LUT talk.
Honestly prefer the short’s visual style, that’s what college classrooms actually look like. Also, the high color saturation of the feature is a bit much sometimes.
Was this written by GPT? Ridiculous writing
If it wasn't written in it, it was definitely passed through it and narrated by AI.
I worked with the DP on the short and it was a pitch for the feature. He is also friends with the director of the feature. They switched DP for the feature because the DP of the short was not that well known yet. That is why the short also has shot for shot scenes.
I'm sitting here wondering why the trombone player was using a trumpet mouthpiece in the short film
Short films can look every bit as good as their feature counterparts - it's just a time, money, and skill thing. After all, commercials are short films and they often have budgets, per second, higher than features.
Loved the Ai written script and voice over
I honestly like the look of the short film of Whiplash more, I actually used it as inspiration for my own feature film. For some reason the movie looks cheaper to me, and more minimalist.
Is chatGPT behind this video? Is the narrator voice real?
how the F did a script written by chat GPT get 750k views, and there's real creators out there that can't get ahead?
90% of the effects mentioned here can be created in post. You just need the right guys behind the camera and on the computers.
5:43 - *rehearsal* room
Is this voice A.I. generated or is this actually a real voice? I can never tell with these channels anymore.
Pretty sure it is. There's delivery is very consistently flat all the way through and the way it says "set design" sounds off in a way a lot of text to speech usually is.
@@benphillips2947 Yeah it's like those movie recap videos all just using text to speech.....
I immediately decided it was after he pronounced Schaffer
Was this video written, directed, and performed by an AI?
Biggest thing to me I think is the color grading. No excessive uses of individual tones. The lighting and grading is usually very neutral.
what's up with the AI voiceover?
You know, I came to the comments because I wasn't sure it was AI at first. But after several minutes in, it's obvious. The cadence starts off sounding natural enough, but the pronunciation is just too consistently "off" that it's not attributable to normal variation in speaking. The way the word "design" is always pronounced the same odd way, with a slightly rounded and lengthened vowel in the second syllabe, as well as the fact that the narration never puts emphasis on the word "set" in "set design," the way anyone familiar with filmmaking would, gave it away for me. There are other tells involving syllabic emphasis such as "stylized" and "contrasting." Particularly, I think a human narrator would usually say "SHORT films" more often "short FILM," especially when contrasting them with "FEATURE fims" (which is emphasized correctly). There are also some places where the script likely omitted a comma, such as "warm moody colors."
I feel like short films have this more "alive" feel to them because most of the times people who are making them are really passionate about what they are making wich results in a pretty good looking product. Sadly the same could not be said about most big budget movies and even games nowadays.
Would this be an even more prominent issue when shooting digital as opposed to film? I assume shooting on film you’d pick a stock which gives you the tones and color balance you’re looking for.
Some people still prefer film over digital, but in todays age you can achieve a lot with digital, even fake it to look a lot like film. Of course it's not gonna be the same, but it is close.
@@movieluts I see, thanks for the response!
This was a fantastic video and really helped a lot! One thing not mentioned though is subtle shot changes, where the frame in the feature includes more of the expensive set than the short like at 3:00 for example
my boi in the thumbnail using that new invisible shake weight
This is a fantastic case study on the looks of cinema in general.
Good video, one thing about modern color grading though, including the other films showcased in this video, is that I feel like they need to dial the intensity of the grade down by about 15%. Modern grading feels too consistently saturated for my tastes, especially when it's applied across the whole film. I don't mind it for certain scenes though, for example the intense orange of Vegas in BR 2049 served a very specific purpose. And as someone who spent the late 2010's in California, a very familiar look (wildfires).
Anyone who needs a rundown of everything he just said:
There is a TL;DR at the end but I highly suggest you read all of this in full.
1. Set design: this effects the look of a short film due to its simplicity because of a smaller budget and with a simple set, comes a simple look along with natural lighting from the windows which brings me to the next point.
2. Lightning: because short films are on a tight budget they can’t afford much lighting equipment and in that leads to the use of a LOT of natural lighting which contributes to that “short film look”. Such as the cool white shining through the windows in the Whiplash short.
3. Color Grading: this is the most important aspect of it but let me explain two things first. There are two different settings commonly used with DSLR cameras and those are “RAW” footage where is takes the most info it can from what it is recording leading to bigger file size and “LOG” recording which leads to smaller file size and a more flattened-grayish look to the recording so in post production it is easier to manipulate the colors. Now, I don’t personally know which kind of format Damien Chazelle chose but I personally think he shot the short film in RAW leading to..well..the “raw recording” kind of feeling. Again, due to the tight budget I don’t think he could have afforded a big time colorist to make the film look like how the feature did. AND the inexperienced filmmaker doesn’t necessarily know everything about color grading in Premiere Pro or DaVinci Resolve now.
TL;DR
1. Set Design: tight budget = simpler set design
2. Lighting: tight budget = natural lighting usage FROM simpler set design
3. Color Grading: inexperienced filmmaker + tight budget = straight from camera footage.
what is funny is that the shot at 12:21 of the guy standing in the field looks 100x better without the color grading.
The orange version of whiplash has that color because it was filmed in Mexico :B
hahahahaha
The simple answer is that a compelling film drastically simplifies the visual narrative structure so that the actors performance stands out via distinct foreground and background separation. Every day settings and lighting are chaotic and random, so if they're used as is, there is little to no foreground and background separation; this makes the actors performance and the directorial tone feel flat and indifferent. The simple hack of the feature film version here isn't colour grading, it's replacing white walls lit by omni present daylight, with dark to black backgrounds lit by directional lights focused on the actors only. This creates a frame where only faces and hands stand out in a sea of dark, the only thing the audience considers is emotion; the concept of setting is erased entirely. It makes us feel, "There's you, there's me, and there's the music, and nothing else." Much like a tense police interrogation scene.
"this makes the actors performance and the directorial tone feel flat and indifferent." -> nonsense. i 100% disagree.
The case for natural lighting: There are many examples, but one of the most famous ones in recent times is "The Revenant".
You don't just color grade everything yellow and get a better movie
one of my fav humans in the industry on this thumbnail, not even that big of a difference to be honest, bless him
12:54 "animation" definetly a genre right there.
in my opinion the differences between the two boiled down to creative differences from whomever was the DP. With that being said I agree, bigger budgets allow more production value and a more experienced team, but the feature look could have been executed with a short film budget for sure. This is a bad comparison to make such a generalization about how short films look. Ive seen shorts that have visually blown me away and also features that leave you baffled at why it cost so much.
It's a money issue. Most short films are shot on a shoestring budget. Which means less money for equipment, which means less sources of artificial light and proper ways to shape light. And if you are shooting on "hybrid cameras" such as the A7S III or Panasonic S5, you'll never reach the image flexibility of even (the super cheap) Blackmagic 4K / 6K. By shooting RAW, you can really bend the image to look exactly the way you planned it.
If you try to mess a lot with videos shot on H264, you'll quickly learn the limitations of those files. I'm actually editing a project now where I'm blending 8K RAW footage from the Canon R5C and H264 footage from an A7III, and it's been a real struggle to match the shots.
Due to budget being so tight, you end up using more natural light and due to the files having so little flexibility for post, you can't really mess too much on the color grading aspect of filmmaking.
What are the cons of
Shooting raw ?
@@Incog80 Not exactly a CON, but MASSIVE FILE SIZES (Every hour I shoot on my Blackmagic 6K G2 at 6K resolution on BRAW I'm getting almost 700MB of space occupied). I literally have to shoot directly to a SSD disk.
There's no noise reduction. This is actually pretty good, since you want to do that on post production, but if you're doing fast projects where you just want to edit fast and be done with, some people feel like this is a CON (not for me).
Other than these "CONS" (which I don't really see as a CON, just mild incoveniences for some people who want finish projects super fast), shooting RAW is a dream.
You get all the information there, you can change ISO and WB while editing, which can be very forgiving if you're doing run n gun style of shooting and you didn't get the perfect settings dialed in while filming.
You get the literal "RAW" image. No digital trickery being done on top. And super flexibility and LOTS AND LOTS of information on that image.
You can literally change the color of the sky to purple without breaking the image.
@@joaocorreiamediathank you for the detailed response Ojoaoefixe. I guess if I shoot raw I’m gonna need a lexar memory card
@@Incog80 Depends on the camera you are using, resolution, compression rates, etc.
You might be able to shoot with a super fast SD Card or maybe you'll need a SSD drive.
One of the most common (but quite expensive solutions) are CFast cards. They are as fast as SSD drives, small size, BUT terribly expensive. I can buy 4-6 1TB SSD drives for the price of 1 TB CFast card.
It all comes down to your workflow, camera, settings, etc. There's not really a solution that fits all needs, you have to research and find out the solution that best suits your needs :)
@@joaocorreiamedia again thanks for the reply , hope the best for you
After finally getting around to educate myself about color grading, I'm much more acutely aware of color grades in movies, and I detest them more every time. The reason is that being mostly oblivious before I didn't pay much notice, but now it is something that breaks down the 4'th wall. I understand the purpose and how it, as much else in moviemaking is a tool to convey emotion, but it is still takes away the realism. If we found ourselves in a Blue / teal lit room, our eyes would not notice the colored light, we'd white balance it our selves, but on a screen we don't so noticing in a movie what looks like off lighting or colors is a put off. Only case where I think it works, is if the colorgrading is motivated, like Harrison Ford's home in Blade Runner 2049 where it looks natural that everything is orange because of the smog outside.
Fun Fact, the orange/yellow in Blade Runner 2049 is meant to highlight that the protagonist will get new information, for example Harrison Ford is full of new information, hence the orange colors from the smog outside, and the more yellow ones in his house.
@@movieluts That's clever and useful use of coloring.
I agree, I prefer a more subtle grade. When movies are straight up yellow it really bugs me. Whiplash doesn’t bother me too much as it fits
this feels like it was written by chatggpt
whos the guy you used to sample for the voiceover? why isnt he doing it himself
This sounds like the Wade C. voice from Wellsaid labs. All of their voices were cloned with the written consent of the voice actors, and they earn royalties every time it is used in a project. Wellsaid studio's highest tier pricing is $200 a month. A 12 minute video with a real voiceover artist of this quality would be at least $300.
3:14 you exchanged the pictures for lighting and color grading right?
Great breakdown, but i am sure the color grading of the short was a creative choice because of the budget constraints in regards to practical lighting and location choice. Grading a scene unnaturally is not really something aspiring filmmakers do if they want to be taken seriously.
Thank GOD you made this video I've wondered this forever
🙌
Location and color are basically all that looks different..everything else is spot on..
A windowless room feels suffocating as it is. And then you have this intense stress before and after the trombonist is kicked out only to have the 2nd chair be the one who is flat. I think implying that the sweat is from the physical and emotional claustrophobia elevates that lit fuse that explodes when the chair is throne. Nail biting tension.
Is your VO ai generated? I may be wrong..This is the first video I've watched on your channel.
What is the movie that is seen as an example for lighting?
Blade Runner 2049
this has got to be the most memorable movie i've never seen
AWESOME video and explanation! Absolutely on-point. Your explanations and sample frames you pulled illustrated your points perfectly. My snap reaction was to say, yeah, well, budget, duh. But going further in-depth, and choosing a film made so similarily in short and feature form really enhanced the reasons bigger budgets make such a big difference.
man, thats a bad bad video. The answer why the feature looked so much different is simply the grading. thats it. Grade the shortfilm the same way and it would look 90% of the feature.
Great stuff - I actually prefer the look of the shorter movie - I think the feature length movie although has a nice red, woody colour to it, I dont think you get as much visual information, which is also framed really well in the clips you showed of the short movie. Also the lead actor in the short movie seems a better choice, he seemed to look more age appropriate and acted really well.
Thanks! They chose Miles Teller for the feature because he was a bigger name and knew how to play drums.
The look of the feature length movie has to do with tone and mood of the scene. You might prefer the look of the short film but the look of the feature is much more in line with the story and the scene.
@@SuchetB There’s nothing particularly interesting about the look of the short film. Why do you prefer it?
@@tico5058 while I like the look of colour graded stuff in the bigger feature length version, and the grading when done right, I do feel the colours are too strong in comparison to the short, some of the information is also crunched. The shorter one seems more truer to reality, the performance of the lead actor also seems better. I do like the powerful longer feature length version, but when compared side-by side like this, I prefer the shorter version more.
If you don't think high end camera impact the end result, look at 4:44 where the BTS camera and filmcamera have the exact same lighting and setdesign but have completly different looks! 👍
but not the same perspective. that's the key 👌🏻
High end camera does have an impact but a very small one. Also 4:44 doesnt show the end result of both cameras, just the bts one.
@@daniellrodriguezs Also it's not graded to match the tone of the movie and lenses are not the same as well, if anything it might just be graded to get a general look for a bts.
Ya'll have very good points! I have worked with both IPhone, midsencor cameras and a RED Epic Dragon 6K on different short films. And what I or the BTS camera (Sony or Black Magic) we had on that short (Dragon 6K) saw to very different things. The lighting on set looked very flat but in camera it looked incredible!
Sure you can make it look cinematic with both IPhones and midsencor cameras, but large and/or high end cameras is another beast all together! 🙏 That does not mean that a high end camera is always the best choice for every project.
What it actually comes down to is boldness. on a feature a more experienced director will “we are doing it this way cause it will make the story better” and that’s that.
on a short, all the film makers, including the director, are all trying not to make mistakes so they can get hired again. this causes them to look very similar. sticking to the traditional cinema color pallet like it’s law.
the simple answer is: bright walls mean more light bouncing, which creates less sharp and defined lit forms and edges.
the answer is truly: control of lighting and color. I just watched both Little Shop of Horrors movies - 1962 and 1986, and the custom sets of the 1986 version, with the dark, low-key walls, ground, etc. make it automatically look WAY more cinematic because you have more control over the light - in the sense of light bouncing, and in the sense of the perceived silhouettes and shapes onscreen. in a way darker environments create more visual focus .
Was this written by ChatGPT?
Thank god I'm not the only one going mad. I was thinking this is so weirdly written and narrated. The inflection on of some of the words and the general overall cadence was not how a real person would speak.
at least coauthored by it
Does anybody know what movie is the shot from the lighting topic screen is? The one that says "bank" in korean?
"Some of their skill sucks, can't hire professional to fill the gaps on the tight budget" - Like this if I just save you 12:54 minutes.