Why do new films look "dark and blue"?

B

banano008

New member
Modern films seem to look darker and bluer than older films (as though you're watching them through an old mirror or something). ReRAB just don't look as bright as they used to any more.

It was my dad who spotted this (he watches a lot of 70s films) but I am starting to see what he means now.

On the positive side, this blue effect makes things look softer and more artistic. But on the negative side, it makes things look colder and perhaps less realistic?

I just wondered if anyone else had noticed this, or could explain the phenomenon? Is red frowned upon these days in films?
 
I expect they didn't used to be blue because they didn't have much control over it. Nowadays they do colour grading in a computer so the director gets to pick.

I can't say I've noticed them picking blue especially. Sometimes they use colour-coding, so the colour is different in different scenes. Eg The Matrix puts a green shade over scenes which are in the matrix (which I think looks ugly and spoils the film for me somewhat), and a different colour for scenes in Zion (I forget which; it might be blue, with gold for the machines). The TV series Heroes is set in various cities and uses a different tone for each one, to help the viewer keep track.
 
I know exactly what the OP means. Lots of 'gritty' films these days are shot in various shades of blue and grey, with almost no bright colours present. I think they're done with some sort of filter or post-production effect.

The first series of CSI:NY was also shot like this, until CBS told the producers that it was too depressing and wasn't in keeping with the franchise. The second series started with them moving into a new building with lots of glass and natural light, and everyone seemed to be wearing a bright colour!
 
I'm sure someone else can elabourate more, but older films get their colour from tints from the lights on set, where as newer films often use post-processing and cover the entire screen with one colour, normally blue. This is most noticable in the Die Hard franchise; where as 1-3 looked real, 4 looked very blue.
 
Here's kind of an example of what I mean:

These are grabs from Star Trek episodes, before and after the recent remaster:
Shot 1 - old
Shot 1 - new

Shot 2 - old
Shot 2 - new

And quite an obvious example:
Shot 3 - old
Shot 3 - new

Bear in mind the new one actually looks a lot better quality in high definition, and it should be more accurate as it's a brand new high quality transfer from the original film.

But see how much stronger the reRAB are in the old one. I don't really think you see strong reRAB like that any more in films. I can kinda agree with this, and kinda disagree!
 
Think you're referring to a bleach bypass. Digital processing means doing this isn't such a big gamble as opposed to doing a bleach bypass the old way. Now they can just switch it on in post processing, and if they don't like it, they can adjust it there and then. It can be much overused though.

The Trek shots don't appear to use this, and just appear to have been a little desaturated perhaps to better integrate the new CGI.
 
Great post OP.... I agree wholeheartedly. I'm a big fan of the Underworld films and they're so "dark and blue" as you say they're almost in black & white.
 
There are some obvious exceptions though. Volver is the exact opposite - it's very bright and the dominant colour is red. Red clothes, red cars, red blood...
 
There seemed to be a lot of this saturation going on in the late 1990s and early 00s. shows like Heroes also use it. I actually think it is beginning to ge ta bit dated and there should be a return to glorious colour
 
Interesting. I think that may have something to do with it, although I don't think it's the complete answer. Thanks for that info though.


Cheers Revolver! :)


LOL :D

I seriously doubt any studio would sacrifice picture quality for the sake of making it harder for people to copy. (Those cinema pirate copies are poor enough as it is!) Interesting idea though.
 
As has been pointed out, there are hundreRAB of reasons for this 'effect', not least the artistic side of things. Many directors chose cool blues to create an 'atmosphere'.

However, there are many technical reasons too.

To start with, the colour response of film stock has developed over time. We can now capture colour more accurately thanks to improved chemical formulations and developing techniques.

Then, you must consider light. There was a time when only so-called 'hot' colours were available when it came to studio lighting (well, cheaply and widely obtainable anyway). Nowadays you can easily get hold of neutral density bulbs, not to mention filters and gels that can add colours without altering the temperature balance.

The 'Star Trek' issue is a typical remastering effort. The reason why TV Shows used to be so 'red/orange' wasn't due to the way they were shot - it was to do with the way they were broadcast.
Broadcast NTSC colourspace artifically boosts the red channels to make the picture appear 'better'. Obviously in a world of high-resolution displays (HD and the like) there's no need for this *ahem* correction, so remasters put the blue back in again. NTSC is notoriously bad when it comes to colours; As Wikipedia points out:



If you can stand the technical details, Wikipedia also explains that...



Obviously with lots of movies being broadcast on TV and available on VHS, the 'look' filtered on down. Although we use PAL in our country, much of the US material is just ported straight over without any adjustment (IE we see the NTSC colourspaced version rather than our own specially formulated PAL encode).



That's one of the joys of Almodovar; he loves to saturate his movies with rich colours - a strong contrast to his subject matter.
Can you imagine Hollywood trying to tackle heavy subjects like incest and rape without resorting to a hackeneyed effect like drowning the image in a sea of blue ... What a shame so many people avoid his work "cause it's got subtitles" *sigh*
 
damndirtyape,

Thank you! :D :D :D

An excellent response to my question, and some fascinating information.

I already knew how crappy NTSC was, but I was thinking that was more about resolution, and poor contrast. I didn't realise NTSC had a considerably different hue to PAL. That explains a thing or two about video. (Although the issue with films is obviously independent to video issues.)
 
Back
Top