pouët.net

Paintovers

category: gfx [glöplog]
Finally some worthy footage :-)

BB Image
added on the 2013-09-17 00:21:35 by pixtur pixtur
My little apocalypse!? :)
added on the 2013-09-17 09:31:34 by gaspode gaspode
:D
added on the 2013-09-17 09:56:52 by Preacher Preacher
haha :D
added on the 2013-09-17 10:25:05 by v3nom v3nom
:D YESS! I love than one! Smash, do a remix plz?!
added on the 2013-09-17 12:25:24 by raer raer
lol
added on the 2013-09-17 12:26:54 by visy visy
haha, smash needs you to do a design for the next fairlight prod
pixtur: that's awesome! :)
added on the 2013-09-17 12:43:22 by maytz maytz
pixtur - re waveforms, do you mean
a) (chroma / luminance) waveform
b) (image_x / luminance) waveform (http://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/rgb-parade/)

...or both / all of the above / the more the merrier? :)

Randomly related links
http://support.apple.com/kb/PH12688
http://www.toolfarm.com/blog/entry/plug_in_qa_waveform_monitor_vectorscope_for_a fter_effects
added on the 2013-09-17 14:25:21 by hornet hornet
@hornet: I'm still getting used to this. I played around with a mixed RGB-Waveform (i.e. RGB-Overlay), got irritated and switched to grayscale (not Luma), and now I'm using grayscale+RGB parade – most of the time ignoring the colors. The colorized Luma at the apple-page looks interesting. Maybe I will try this one.

It's quite interesting to see that Lift, Gamma, Gain seems to be much more powerful than Shadow, Midtones, Lights, so I will switch to a combination of both.

I'm not sure if I also should invest some time into implementing LUTs. Not sure, if there is a common standard, though.
added on the 2013-09-17 16:16:51 by pixtur pixtur
I guess the "common standard" for LUTs might be: give a screenshot of the scene in question with the original LUT colors inserted somewhere into the picture to your artist, let him/her tweak colors in photoshop, read back the LUT from the image, use those values.
Also, i totally agree with everything you said about color grading.

On that older topic:
Quote:
For wide landscapes and big environments, there are more effective techniques that are easier to implement but harder to master.

The things that come to mind are atmospherics (fog etc.) and familiar size cues (like people or windows or whatever). Anything else?
added on the 2013-09-17 17:08:11 by cupe cupe
Contrast of different type: in luma, in saturation, in dimension, in structure, function, meaning, you name it.

I'm still intimidated by Craig Mullins. I think he gave some advice at sijun.com some decades ago. I can't remember the details, but if you look at this, he uses a combination of:
- high saturation -> gray/white
- (partly) warm color -> cool colors
- warm environment -> freezing cold
- clarity -> fogginess
- high local contrast (green pure white) -> very low contrast
- small dimension (sparkles) -> huge blocks of mountains

He also breaks the arrangement down into several layers so each of steps is less drastic.

And finally, adding the little ship forces you to read/deconstruct the image in the step by step order he has intended for you.

He builds a huge scene, without any DOF and very few detail.

Obviously I'm a big groupie :-)
added on the 2013-09-17 17:41:10 by pixtur pixtur
Stupid thought of late at night state: would it help if we had some kind of IK equivalent for color grading?
As artists we picture the final result before we have even a single cube on screen. But as coders we put things on screen and end up with colors that may share very little with the original concept, and try to make it look better by tweaking. Isn't it a bit contrived?
added on the 2013-09-17 17:59:37 by Zavie Zavie
Zavie: isn't that what photoshop's "Auto Color" is for?
added on the 2013-09-17 18:04:09 by Gargaj Gargaj
@gargaj: hahaha
@zavie: I doubt it's that easy. But technology surely can be useful. I was quite impressed by "match color" in FinalCut. Professional color artist probably scream with laughter, but for me it was a nice source of inspiration.

The best advice is still: start with good references. Find something that looks nice. If you don't trust in your taste (which is a good thing), just pick a random piece from Craig Mullins. Then try to transfer / reproduce.
added on the 2013-09-17 18:35:33 by pixtur pixtur
pixtur: I'd say totally go with the LUT option, but treat it as what it is: a cube, not a LUT. Once you think of it as a cube full of colour, you're thinking in the colourspace itself, and you can really learn to control the colour in powerful ways. If you're working in RGB, don't think of it as RGB - think of it as HSL or whatever, with luminance being the diagonal axis, hue being the angle round that axis, and saturation being the distance from axis.

If you can get your head round that, all your colour manipulation becomes simply distorting the cube in various ways. Stretch along the axis for more contrast. Compress into the axis for desaturation. Spin the cube around the axis for hue shift. Tilt the axis so the white end moves into yellow and the dark end moves into blue for outdoor lighting :)
added on the 2013-09-17 18:49:49 by psonice psonice
added on the 2013-09-18 22:31:20 by hornet hornet
BB Image

BB Image
added on the 2013-09-26 03:57:54 by Salinga Salinga
@Salinga: Cool!
added on the 2013-09-26 11:54:56 by gaspode gaspode
What an acid trip. :)
added on the 2013-09-26 12:02:04 by gloom gloom
looks like synesthetics on a bad hair day!
added on the 2013-09-26 18:29:42 by Maali Maali
We just need gloom to write some psytrance :)
added on the 2013-09-26 18:32:31 by psonice psonice
[img9https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1380722_432604603524 218_1419274664_n.jpg[/img]
added on the 2013-10-04 18:26:48 by Salinga Salinga
BB Image
added on the 2013-10-04 18:27:52 by Salinga Salinga
BB Image
BB Image
added on the 2013-10-06 00:06:05 by psykon psykon

login