No, it is not shot "flat". Scenes are still lit the same way.
What happens is the camera can capture more of the full range of light. When you look at that cruched down into the limited dynamic range of 8 bit video and monitors it looks "flat".
You can apply a single fixed curve to that recorded image and it would look great. It also does mean there's more scope for colour grading and correction or as others have put it, getting exposure dead right is not so critical, we're closer to what can be done with film by controlling the amount of light when printing.

Bob.

Ah, understood! My misuse of the "flat" got it - I wont forget THAT in a rush.

And again, do you know why it looks good? 'Cos there HAS been the application of the centuries-old understanding of layers and lighting and so on. And that has been won from the analytical study of light and colour. Pick-out the pieces that fit into the technology-direction outlined here, fine. But again it has to do with the artist driving the bus. And that requires the same analysis that this colourist used. And that is all the point I'm making here.

I suspect that the colourist here had neither the options of technologies nor the range of post-prod, lately brought to the discussion.

Cheers

Grazie

As someone who came to video creation-editing from a graphic designer, illustrator background as well as having a very distinctive visual style (yes, somewhat surrealistic), the concept of video layers is something I've been aware of -- Maxifield Parrish in the early 20th century painstakingly used many, many layers of water colors to give a luminance that was un-matched. As with use of colors, etc., it tends do come rather naturally to me -- often through simple trial-and-error experimenting.

In terms of the issue brought up that color/colour-izing is in some way just a a form of cheating or indicative or a lack of talent or editor's integrity and that everyone should just shoot "right" and render as-is doesn't take into account the same diversity as the painting/fine arts have past and present:

... there are many, many ways to paint and use of color in both so-called realistic to impressionistic, cubist, etc. etc ways -- and none of those are forms of cheating. They are part of the artistic process of expression.
And so ditto for the more modern version of painting -- still photography to film and video. Diversity is part of the palette. From straight, no frills videos and documentaries to "art house" films, etc. And even within each category there are endless styles applied, some subtle, others more dramatic.

In short, do and honor what fits your muses and your medium and target audience, but it's more gracious to not trash someone else's differences in choices of theirs--including uses of color/colourizing, etc. just because it doesn't fit yours. Theirs may not float your boat, but if it's well done, let it be well done and sail in their own waters of visual expression.

"Nuf said.

To add another LOG to the fire

http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2012/01/7-tips-for-hd-color-correction-and-dslr-color-correction/

"And that has been won from the analytical study of light and colour. "

Argh, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. It's way, way more than splitting an image into layers with SCC or masks and tweaking each layer.

From Vittorio Storaro:

“To me, making a film is like resolving conflicts between light and dark, cold and warmth, blue and orange or other contrasting colors. There should be a sense of energy, or change of movement. A sense that time is going on — light becomes night, which reverts to morning. Life becomes death. Making a film is like documenting a journey and using light in the style that best suits that particular picture… the concept behind it.”

"I suspect that the colourist here had neither the options of technologies nor the range of post-prod, lately brought to the discussion."

That's true. The amount the image can be pushed around depends on how much data lies "behind" it. This took me years to get my head around, theoretically you could have two seemingly identical images up on your monitor and one would withstand way more adjustment than the other.

A simple example is taking a photo with a DSC and recording it as RAW or JPG and then trying to make adjustments to it.


One thing though. At the pointy end of the business it's my understanding that it's the Directory Of Photography that is responsible for the look, not the colorist. This has become a contentious point with the increasing extent to which the image can now be manipulated, on top of that the DP is no longer paid to supervise the grade.

Bob.

Argh, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. It's way, way more than splitting an image into layers with SCC or masks and tweaking each layer.

No, I had and will continue to point out that this colourist has shown that layers are important to give the picture what she had achieved. The purpose bringing it here was to invite friends here to take this on board. Nothing more nothing less. Purely this particular colourists approach in creating layers using an analytical pathway, which in itself was been hard won over the centuries.

Grazie

"this colourist has shown that layers are important to give the picture what she had achieved"

Agree.
Having thought about this a lot and slept on it though I suspect the failure to communicate has happened because you've linked the idea you're trying to comunicate to a single example in a limited area. As a result many of us focussed only on the example and failed to see the bigger picture.

We use layers in almost everything, from the management of a company to the building of a storyline, the composition of music and the mixing of sound. What this colourist has done is using layers to bring life to an image in the same way that painters and visual artists have built images for eons. By studying this example you can see new ways to look at an image to enhance it or manipulate it.

Bob.

Strictly from an art standpoint I can respect her talent. I would also tend to give the photographer or DP the benefit of the doubt though. From a still photo to a film, it was the original photographers image or take on the world and I don't think a colorist should taint the original artists vision. I think everyone agrees that colorizing B&W classic films was an interesting diversion but not something that should be done even though it can be done.

I can't say I have never done tweaking but I know my photography skills are lacking and so I'm more than willing to tweak my originals to get closer to the image in my mind's eye.

Some of the examples were tweaked too much in my humble opinion. With that in mind and since we don't see the next frame (stills opposed to video) the work done could cause more trouble. Like with the guy at the sewing machine, we don't see the next frame where a door opens and the image is blown out. Albeit extreme, you get the point...

I'll expand my take on this some more:

"At first glance an image on the page, the silver screen or our TV is only a two dimensional thing.
By training ourselves we can learn to see it has several dimensions that have layers.
One dimension is the tonal range, shadows, midtones and highlights are the principle layers.

Another dimension is distance from the viewer / camera. Again this depth can be broken down into layers.

By analysing either or both of these dimensions of an image we can develop the skills to record better images or improve / enhance / manipulate an already recorded image. In the example the colorist shows both dimensions being used. Some are perhaps too overt however they provide clear examples of how the techniques can be used."

Bob.

I wonder if we have a common understanding of the term "layers"? In painting the image is created layer by layer, light areas added over darker, etc. to build up a vibrant image. In photography that process is performed before the image is taken (arrangement, lighting, design). In digital image processing an image can be broken into layers to make changes such as colour, gamma, and to move elements of the image relatively. In the Zacuto shoot-out some of the tests were corrected using 24 layers. And then we might think of distance from the camera as close, medium and far layers where distant hills are subdued in tone relative to vibrant foreground details. Perhaps the term means different things to different artists?