Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4
And the only way a director would not like the Darbee does if he didn't want the detail to be noticeable but preferred an air brushed look.If the Director was shooting in 4K and viewing said on a 4K display, I can't believe he wouldn't like what the Darbee does for a 2K source and disp;ay or a slightly lower 1080p capture and a 1080p display.
Well there are two issues that need to be separated here: what the Darbee "does" in terms of how a cinematographer might use it and what the Darbee "does" to his film image in the hands of most consumers who actually buy one.
Viewing an image with more actual resolution (4K vs 2K) is a different looking image than viewing a 2K image with the Darbee enhancing it. Since the Darbee does not increased visible detail via actual new source information, but instead uses a manipulation of contrast to highlight detail, that is an additional manipulation a director is not seeing when he views a 4K source. The more you crank up the Darbee, the more you change the look of the whole picture. I mean, I'm not even the cinematographer of the movies I'm watching and even I
start to get turned of by the level of alteration the image takes on as the Darblet cranks higher and higher, let alone the cinematographer whose efforts went into getting the lighting/contrast balance precisely as he desired on set and in post.
I mentioned some examples before in the thread. For instance a scene that demonstrated this aptly is a scene in Avatar were Colonel Quaritch is sitting under over head lighting. There are highlights at the top of his nose and brow/cheeks. With the Darblet off it looks fine. But as I turned the Darblet up, since the Darblet works by taking brighter and darker areas and increasing their contrast, those facial highlights got, in cinematography terms, hotter and hotter until they looked way too bright and artificial, blown-out looking like bad video. Having worked as an electric on film sets for years I'm sure the DP would have sent me scurrying for flags and scrims (or backing off lights) to bring those highlights down to a non-distracting level. In other words, given how finely grained cinematographers control the balance of lighting - that is their job! - I can't imagine a cinematographer watching the Darbee increase contrast and not at some point protesting that it's altering his work in a direction he didn't want.
Of course we can talk about using the Darbee subtly at lower settings, which don't alter the image contrast as obviously. But a lot of people won't be using the Darblet always at lowest settings. So I can imagine the Darblet will often be used to alter the image in a way that a director, or more likely the cinematographer, would disprove of, to some degree.
None of this is to take away from the Darbee which I use and enjoy. Like any image processing tool you can push it too hard. But when we talk of a director/cinematography liking what the Darbee does for 2K we would have to be clear we would be talking about his own judicious use of the Darbee....and not necessarily "what the Darbee is doing for the image in people's set ups" given that people will be using various settings, a number of them likely meriting disapproval from someone who shot the movie.
My take anyway...