fight club look

[dancingii]

i was wondering if anybody had any idea of the process that david fincher uses to color correct his films. it's on fight club and seven. its that very drab dirty look. i was curious if any body had any advice on achieving this look or anything close. i'll post pics if i can find them.

[lordtangent]

It's called "bleach bypass" or "skip bleach"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleach_bypass

Of course, that is a film based process. But the effect is it's pretty easy to emulate digitally.

Now that you know what it is called you can use google to find one of the many software specific tutorials on how to achieve it. Really, it's not that hard, but I don't feel like writing a whole tutorial right now. (And I don't know what software you are using anyway)

[dancingii]

i know about bleach bypass. that's not what i mean. i more mean the way that everything has a very oily look and how everything is very warm and not high contrast, but still dark in the shadows and bright in highlights. everything looks just dirty and grimy.

[dancingii]

like this
http://sianach.org/marla/images/Marla%2017.jpg

[Ian-T]

Looks like lots of key and back lighting with not much fill..(at least in in a few of those shots)...all the shots seem to be high contrast with a yellowish type of tint on the overall look.

[mattias]

i know about bleach bypass. that's not what i mean. i more mean the way that everything has a very oily look and how everything is very warm and not high contrast, but still dark in the shadows and bright in highlights. everything looks just dirty and grimy.
i'm not sure what it is you know about bleach bypass but this is exactly the look you get from using it. :-)

other than that both movies have a lot of soft overhead lighting, and only soft overhead lighting. the softness lowers the contrast but the direction also creates a lot of shadows which "deepens" the look.

/matt

[lordtangent]

I want to also add something mattias andIan-T made me think of with their comments.

Often times, what people call a "look" is actually the result of art direction (first), Actually, when I was first starting in FX and I worked in models, one of the old salts put it to me this way regarding the importance of the various factors of a model: What part of the model do you see? Well, the PAINT of course!

His position was that the paint is arguably the "most important" part of the model. (He didn't even specialize in painting... so I found that interesting, BTW) Of course other details matter as well... but the point is the paint, the surface, is what the camera actually SEES.

Think about the locations in Fight Club. Hm... interesting huh? The art direction was all very specific to even make the walls look a certain way, wasn't it?

Carrying that same thinking forward, remember that it's the LIGHTING that makes the picture. You can control what the camera sees and how it looks with the lighting.

The "looks" software and other "Magic Bullet" bullmamamama is marketed in a way to make naive people think it will solve all thier problems and Magically make them Janusz Kaminski, Darius Khondji or Christopher Doyle

Sorry. It doesn't work that way. You need to control everything in the frame though 1. Art Direction 2. Lighting 3. Exposure.

The post handling is minor factor. You can fix stuff with "DI" but unless you go crazy with "power windows" (basically a crude form of rotoscoped traveling mattes) you are not ever going to be able to get the same results in a lot of cases where just lighting it right in the first place would have done the job.

Trust me when I say that a "Film Look" lit scene does not look like "real life" at all. Real life is boring. By the time you light a scene to punch it up a little for the camera it doesn't look like a regular "real life" situation most of the time. (at worst it looks like one of those beautiful situations where people know it's a "spacial place" in their how, or office, or where ever, where the light is nice and things are beautiful for some reason...hyper-real... or "peak") If you just point your camera at a boring lit scene, it's going to mostly faithfully reproduce that scene. That camera just records what it sees. And no amount of post processing is really going to make the shot "pop"

[dancingii]

You're not understanding what I'm asking. I'm aware that lighting is the biggest thing in getting things the way you want them to look. That's not what I'm asking. I know about framing and art direction. That's also not what I'm talking about. And I'm not trying to fix anything in post.

Fincher has a really specific color pallette. That's what I'm asking about. In the movie what I'm referring to is the way that the dark is black, but the dark midtones are greenish. Then the overall picture is very warm, but also very desaturated and kinda of brown looking.

So actually yes, I am referring to the look that he acheives through color correction. If nobody has any ideas that's fine, but you don't need to be so pretentious when someone is just asking a question.

Any help is appreciated.

[lordtangent]

Any help is appreciated.

Really? Dude, I'm not being pretentious. Maybe a little preachy. But your question is so naive I felt I needed to be thorough.

You seem to believe you know everything already so I'm not sure why you keep asking the same question over and over. Considering everything you "already know", this should be an easy thing for you to figure out.

You are saying now that it's color correction. Well, my very first answer was "It's color correction". You keep asking the question. So I answer with more options.

You are able to see the elements of the look you want and even articulate them in writing. Can't you just spin the dials on your color correction software until you see the same look? I mean, you "know everything" already and your eyes are good enough to see what you want. Just make it look like that. There is no magic tip that will just do it automatically for you.

[Ian-T]

LT has some good pointers. That look includes both pre and post efforts, Here's and excerpt out of Wikipedia :

The director gave a lurid style to the color palette of the film, choosing to make people "sort of shiny"; Helena Bonham Carter wore opalescent makeup to create a "smack-fiend patina" that would portray her romantic nihilistic character best. The director and cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth were also influenced by American Graffiti (1973), which applied a mundane look to nighttime exteriors while simultaneously including a variety of colors. When Fight Club was processed, several techniques were applied to alter the footage. The contrast was stretched to be purposely ugly, the print was adjusted to be underexposed, resilvering (lower-scale enhancement) was used to increase density, and high-contrast print socks were stepped all over the print to create a dirty patina.[11]

Don't know if this helps.....

[Ian-T]

From what I understand...resilvering is basically another term for bleach bypass.

[Ian-T]

Also....here's a link I had from a couple of years ago called "Marla the Movie"... These guys did a great job in trying to mimic the look of that movie (Fight Club)....I think they might leave some ideas on how they did it..not sure. But this was well acted and put together....it's subtitled. MArla is basically the female character out of Fight Club (I know you know that...but this is just for the sake of other readers).

http://www.marlathemovie.com/

They also have a PDF you can download that basically tells you how they shot it...and color corrected it. Example excerpt:

For Marla, for the interior shots, we did the white balance on an orange box, making the picture shift to blue-green tones. For the exterior shots, we did it on a soft purple sheet of paper, the picture became warmer with some yellow tone in it.
10

[mattias]

If nobody has any ideas that's fine
but we do and we've told you a thousand times: bleach bypass. it really is that simple. "other than that" the look is created through art direction and lighting. if this doesn't answer your question you need to be *waaay* more specific.

/matt

[mattias]

You are saying now that it's color correction. Well, my very first answer was "It's color correction".
i don't think it is. they were color timed optically and there's not much you can do there but very basic rgb balance adjustment.

/matt

[lordtangent]

I mentioned bleach bypass and that he could emulate it digitally with color correction.

[mattias]

i know, but he seems to think that *fincher* did it with digital color correction.

/matt

[icarusi]

It's called "bleach bypass" or "skip bleach"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleach_bypass

Interesting it was influenced by Moby Dick technicolor process which had an additional b&w overlay. I remember that being a particularly 'stark' look. Must have a closer look next time it's on tv.

I think the 'flashback' sequences in the film of 'Catch 22' probably also used that technique. IIRC they fade in from white which makes them especially dreamlike.

[trypt0phan]

Here's an American Cinematographer article from 1999 all about the production:

http://www.edward-norton.org/fc/articles/amcin.html

it describes the lighting used, film stock, pretty much everything.

[Ian-T]

Here's an American Cinematographer article from 1999 all about the production:

http://www.edward-norton.org/fc/articles/amcin.html

it describes the lighting used, film stock, pretty much everything.That's some interesting information. As I thought, it seems like there was a whole lot of work done to each set before the actual filming to get the look they created.

[NathanTaylor]

a large reason why it also looks that way is the expensive lenses and cameras used.

if you want your moving pictures to look remotely similar, you do it like this.

shoot in 35mm film and put it through colour correction and gamma correction

if you cant shoot film, then shoot it with what you've got, then every single camera change, correct the colour and gamma for every shot. sadly there is no FightClubFilmProcess.exe

[Ian-T]

... sadly there is no FightClubFilmProcess.exeThere isn't..??? I want my money back!!!!

[koolpenguin89]

There isn't..??? I want my money back!!!!

hehe, that made me laugh

[mattias]

a large reason why it also looks that way is the expensive lenses and cameras used
nah, a 35mm camera is just a box, the results look exactly the same whether you're using a $500 konvas or a $200,000 panavision. as for lenses neither of these films strike me as very sharp or technically great looking so i'm sure you could do it with a very basic set. shooting film is a must though. very hard to do get this look digitally since the contrast range is so huge.

shoot in 35mm film and put it through colour correction and gamma correction
again these films were timed optically, so very little color correction, rgb balance only, and no gamma correction aside from what can be achieved from pushing or pulling, and the bleach bypass.

/matt

[Exomniac]

Pick up the New Line Platinum Series edition of Seven. It contains a special feature where you can watch someone color correct a scene starting from the raw footage. He explains everything he's doing through the whole process. It's one of the greatest special features I've seen on a DVD. Of course you also need a keen eye for color to be as great as these guys.

[NathanTaylor]

nah, a 35mm camera is just a box, the results look exactly the same whether you're using a $500 konvas or a $200,000 panavision. as for lenses neither of these films strike me as very sharp or technically great looking so i'm sure you could do it with a very basic set. shooting film is a must though. very hard to do get this look digitally since the contrast range is so huge.

again these films were timed optically, so very little color correction, rgb balance only, and no gamma correction aside from what can be achieved from pushing or pulling, and the bleach bypass.

/matt
at what cost is beyond me...

[lordtangent]

Relative to the other prices involved with making a movie the cost of film cameras and film is pretty marginal. Depending on how many feet a day you shoot and if you use new film or re-cans, the cost would be $1500-$4000 a day. Considering the cost of lighting/grip, talent and crew for a day, film, while definitely a line on the budget, is not too killer.

There are good reasons why even many TV shows are still shot on film: Considering the price, quality, and how "future proof" it is, film is still a very good value for them. And in spite of the myth that seems to have arisen that digital is easier to light for than film, the truth is modern film is actually easier to light for. (due to its dynamic range)

Most of the big features that have been shot on digital recently have been for reasons other than cost. "Digital Cinema" quality cameras cost as much or more to rent per day as film camera. (35mm Film camera $500-$1500 a day, D-cinema cam $3000+ per day) Usually a show chooses to shoot digital for convenience or because the show has a lot of effects that would require film scanning anyway. (Which increases the price of shooting film compared to just acquiring digitally in the first place) Only the best D-cinema cameras are even in the ballpark of film, quality wise. A 40 year old film camera can make images that are still better than a state of the art digital camera, since the technology is in the film, not the camera. The only other factor is the lenses, which have improved a little in the last 20 years or so. But actually not by that much. They had lenses pretty well figured out by the 40s to early 50s. (Mostly the improvements came from better coatings an slightly better glass, not so much the geometry of the lenses) Interestingly, film is "less picky" about lenses than most digital cams, so even those older lenses perform pretty well when teamed with film.

Obviously, digital has certain advantages like immediacy and no need of changing film magazines. Those are factors that come into play for a particular production more than cost. But it's important to realize that using a digital camera can't make the cast, crew or lighting equipment cheaper. For bigger productions film is usually a no-brainer as a result. It's High quality, future proof, standard world wide, and "bondable" (the whole movie insurance business is built around it and is comfortable with it)

[mattias]

well put. i like digital because it lets me shoot improv style, but to be honest i just do that as an experiment and only because i've already pretty much mastered the scripted workflow after having done dozens of films, on film, as a director and dp. plus it lets me own a camera which gives me freedom, again to experiment, but on the other hand i own both super 8 and 16mm cameras as well.

/matt

[mattias]

at what cost is beyond me...
oh, they spent money but not for the reasons you think, that's all. optical timing is much cheaper than digital grading, and as i said you can get a 35mm camera for less than an hv20. the look of the films mentioned comes from talent and manpower, not expensive cameras or advanced post processing, contrary to apparently popular belief.

/matt

[lordtangent]

Yeah. For example, something like "skip bleach", pulling/pushing film or "cross processing" is just a matter of course in handling the film and happens in near realtime (well, as fast as the film goes though the bath at the lab) and regular "printing lights" timing often happens in faster than realtime.

Digital grading has almost caught up, speed-wise. (if you are talking about round-tripping though digital and back to film). But the newer faster equipment costs a fortune!

There is a lot you can achieve the old shool way and just leave digital out of it if you are shooing film in the first place.

The more edgey "Seven" , "Domino" abd "Three Kings" style stuff can still totally be achieved with optical processes. And for a lower budget project achiving the look that way might be cheaper. (Though honestly, the cross processed look is so out of control you could probably just shoot it digital and wack the colors out in post and no one would even be able to tell the digital source... the image is so destroyed by the end)

[Ryanmv11]

I believe your question is mis-worded..

it should be

"how does Jeff Cronenweth create his style?"
(i'm not trying to be a smart ass or anything)

David Fincher is only the director. I don't know about anyone else but the DP is the one who should be credited on the look of that film..
One of the most amazing films i've ever seen.
You should create a film competition on who can creat the best fight club short film.
I believe they are right though.."Bleach Bypass"for digital or either buy a film camera to achieve that beautiul, perfect, look that Fight Club does. Also good grips, DP, etc, etc.
Sorry i'm not much help

[mattias]

David Fincher is only the director
sorry but the word only doesn't quite fit in the same sentence as fincher. :-) he's one of the most visually talented directors there are and the fact that we talk about the look of his *films* even though they were shot by different dp's should be proof enough. and besides the director is *always* responsible for the look of a film, it's not like the dp is the one who talks to the art department for example, or that he can shoot it the way he feel like. the dp is responsible for creating the look, not necessarily choosing which look to create, even though this responsibility is frequently delegated to him by the director.

/matt

[Ryanmv11]

sorry but the word only doesn't quite fit in the same sentence as fincher. :-) he's one of the most visually talented directors there are and the fact that we talk about the look of his *films* even though they were shot by different dp's should be proof enough. and besides the director is *always* responsible for the look of a film, it's not like the dp is the one who talks to the art department for example, or that he can shoot it the way he feel like. the dp is responsible for creating the look, not necessarily choosing which look to create, even though this responsibility is frequently delegated to him by the director.

/matt

:hv20-smilie58::hv20-smilie122:
Sorry. He is very very good. I love Fincher. I didn't mean for a snapback haha but yes i mis-worded him. My apology. And yes you are right, it's not just the DP i just felt the DP never get's credit. I just feel. The director tells the dp how he wants it to look and BAM!! The DP makes it look that way for the director and the director gets credit for that look. But i'll keep to myself...:) sorry i said anything..

-Ryan

[mattias]

why keep it to yourself? that way we wouldn't have this discussion. i could never quite figure out why some people think it's bad to have different opinions. my opinion is that a film is authored by a director. can he do it himself, no, but it's still his movie and he ultimately made all the decisions and since he has to answer for them he should also get the credit. i work professionally both as a director and dp so it's not that i think directors are better or anything. hey i pull focus as well and it's not like i claim that without me it wouldn't be sharp. :-)

/matt

[Ian-T]

:hv20-smilie58::hv20-smilie122:
Sorry. He is very very good. I love Fincher. I didn't mean for a snapback haha but yes i mis-worded him. My apology. And yes you are right, it's not just the DP i just felt the DP never get's credit. I just feel. The director tells the dp how he wants it to look and BAM!! The DP makes it look that way for the director and the director gets credit for that look. But i'll keep to myself...:) sorry i said anything..

-RyanI was going to jump in earlier and say the same thing. But...since you mentioned it...I agree. I understand directors are visionaries...the ones with the ideas. But if you don't surround yourself with people that have the technical ability to make those ideas copme to life....then the director would just be like any of us...who have ideas...and don't have a clue on how to make them materialize.

I look at a lot of directors like...um...business men/women (I did'nt say all :hv20-smilie03:). They know how to network..gather...and manage all the troops and resources to piece together a particular project...sort of like a corporate CEO. But the actual engine behind all that creativity is everyone else. I admit I don't know too much about Mr. Fincher...but does he use a lot of the same talent/people with all of his projects? Is that a common practice with most directors...to use the same people?

[mattias]

saying that directors can't work without a cast and crew is like saying that a painter can't work without canvas and paint. that's a rather provocative way of putting it and i'm the first to recognize the value of great people around you, but ultimately it's the truth. delegating responsibility doesn't mean it's not yours anymore.

/matt

[Ian-T]

saying that directors can't work without a cast and crew is like saying that a painter can't work without canvas and paint. that's a rather provocative way of putting it and i'm the first to recognize the value of great people around you, but ultimately it's the truth. delegating responsibility doesn't mean it's not yours anymore.

/mattHonestly, I don't think that analogy fits what is being said here....but I understand what you are trying to say. And also, it really depends on the situation. My thought is..if you are an independent filmaker with low to no budget...then you can probably get away with doing most everything yourself by wearing a lot of hats...but let's say...James Cameron could have never shot Titanic without his cast and crew....and all the people responsible for post work etc. The movie would have never materialized.

[mattias]

i think this is exactly one of the times where it's good to bring up the analogy, since it's very evident that fincher is fincher no matter who he works with. if you thought i was even remotely talking about doing everything yourself you need to read my post again.

/matt