Letters to the Editor
tomhayes
Published Letters: 23 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Hey, Salon journalists, this is an easy story to do
[Read the article: Was Obama's skin darkened for Clinton ad?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Call up 3 Hollywood video editors and/or video colorists and ask them what they think.
I'll bet they all say that the color and video width are all technical mistakes.
The readers will all reply "Wouldn't that be the way to introduce the race card and still have plausible deniability?" to which you can not answer, because it's so speculative.
Stop relying on BLOGGERS and go talk to some PROFESSIONALS in the subject area.
P.S. And BTW, I don't think Obama needs to be made to look blacker - if someone won't vote for him because he's black the exact tone is not going to make a difference. Unless racism only occurs against dark skinned blacks, as suggested in School Daze.
-
geeze, there are a lot of blowhards in this
[Read the article: Was Obama's skin darkened for Clinton ad?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't trust *anyone''s* knowledge of COLOR CORRECTION her (although many claim to be "video editors").
Why not get a reporter to talk to some COLORIST??
You are aware that color correction and color timing are JOBS, right? The do color grading on film and video projects.
Here's an article about Star Wars EpisodeII that specificly mentions skin colors not matching between footage shot at differnt locations:
http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/bts/production/beacon50.html
From the article:
""The process of color timing is using a very extensive color manipulation and level luminance and gamma manipulation device that a colorist operates and manipulates the images in a way that generates a list that is memorized, and corresponds to a custom look for basically each shot or even regions within a shot," says ILM's HD Supervisor Fred Meyers. This list of variables, stored in computer memory, can then be applied to frames and assigned to shots, creating a specific palette for specific scenes.
"With this system any one of the millions of hues and levels in an image, including selective areas within an image, can be manipulated on a frame by frame basis. You can go at a very slow or fast speed through the picture and match things together or adjust levels in an iterative process. The changes are committed to memory in the system, and you can apply them to the entire reel or the entire movie, executing those changes in real time. It's the same type of editing and flexibility that you have with the other post-production tools in editorial and in computer graphics. You see the changes right then and there.""
Changing colors is *easy* to do, but the Clinton video looks like something a few college kids put together using iMovie. The youtube version looks like some college kid captured it from a Tivo using a DV camera with firewire , converting it to a movie, and uploading it to youtube, which converts it again to a flash video file.
Hell, USC has an endowment for Cinematography and Color Timing. geesh.
-
@ Number six
[Read the article: Was Obama's skin darkened for Clinton ad?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I would like to see someone talk in detail with a professional video editor too. I could very well be wrong, according to their advanced knowledge. And I could accept that. But as far as I my understanding about this goes, the explanations I've heard about this do not make sense."
This is *exactly* what I'm talking about. The issue here is most likely not the EDITING of the video, it's two specific areas in the workflow production.
1)The selection of source materials.
2)The color correction applied to the commercial.
#1)
Likely there is someone who finds stuff from Obama and tags it as "useful in an attack ad." They get a copy of that footage from the network, or they may digitize it themselves.
The video of the candidate (Hillary) is produce by the campaign, using there own equipment, lighting, sound, makeup and cinematographer.
The Hillary material was probably shot using very high-grade high-definition video, while the Obama video was likely digitized off of TV, likely using a fire-wire transport to bring the footage into a computer.
Firewire pixels are RECTANGULAR, HDV video pixels are SQUARE. The television aspect ratio they likely capture at is 4x3, the high definition video they shot is likely 16x9. If they use Obama in a commercial composed at 16x9 the video from the 4x3 source will be stretched 1.2 times it's normal width.
Ever go into Wal-mart and look at the TVs are the image looks stretched so it is wider than it should be? Same reason.
#2)The colorist takes a copy of the video produced by the people who choose what sources to use, and that has been edited by a video editor , and they then change the luminance and hue values in the separate footage based on a decision list form the director, or using their own jdgement, whichever is directed by the production coordinator. AND when you show the opponent you will often increase contrast. Increasing contrast might make Obama look "blacker" or "darker". It makes people look less real and more omnoius, and is used in 90% of all attack ads.
Or maybe they didn't have a colorist on staff and released the video without color correction. Obama digitize from video in a TV studio or on a stump speech may be in generally darker lighting conditions than Hillary being photographed under ideal lighting conditions -and probably lit in a way to make her appear "warmer." more oranges and yellows.
The only way to figure out what went wrong, or go to proving it was done deliberately is talk to professionals in video PRODUCTION. I only have 1.5 years of film school under my belt and I'm not qualified to make these distinctions.
And this isn't ILM only level stuff, every commercial you see, and every TV show you see has a staff to do this type of correction.
Maybe we could ask the CSI Miami cinematographer, a USC professor, and a professional colorist who edits political commercials and get a consensus.
or is that too much WORK for the War Room to do??
-
Florida is truly
[Read the article: No revote in Florida]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]America's wang.
-
To sum up the post: Lucky Duck(ella) you've won again!
[Read the article: Tom the Dancing Bug]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Miss the point much readers??