Drive also had some really nice reds. I hear what you're saying, and I notice as well that this complimentary duo tone is pretty much the current standard look for DI, kinda like the way everyone went bleach-bypass look for a while.

As pretty as some of these modern films are (and I absolutely love everything about Drive) they've made me really appreciate the look achieved pre-DI with fewer radical possibilities through photo-chemical timing and more of the inherent look of individual film stocks preserved. Just pop in a BD for your favorite movie from the 70s/80s/90s and you'll be almost be shocked by the tones present in the image, in flesh tones and lips in particular and fewer orange people running around.

I watched Fight Club the other night, for the first time in a long time and it was almost like parts of my eyes that had gone to sleep from lack of stimulation suddenly were awake.

The Dark Knight Rises is a very contemporary film that didn't succumb to the duo tone look. It's still very neutral by comparison with lots of deep, saturated reds and natural color. I seem to recall reading that they specifically graded in their DI to photo-chemical specs.

Teal and orange is one thing, mostly seen in stuff aimed towards the cinema and a few tv-series. My worst look is the "lazy alexa" look. In other words, a flat, hazy, often with excessively short DOF and often with Zeiss master primes and often with "lazy" lighting. The name comes because this or something close is what you get if you rent an "alexa" at a rental shop, use it like a dslr, shoot prores and don´t bother doing any extensive coloring, not to mention add any amount of contrast or texture to the footage.. It´s like a highly contagious eye-sore on tv and the cinema!

There´s good looking stuff coming from the alexa of course, but 90% looks shit. At least in my part of the world.

The Following is an absolutely great looking show shot on Alexa. That one example does much to prove there is no "Alexa look". In fact there is no "lazy Alexa" look there are lazy colorist looks. "LUT jockeys" as I've heard them called. The flat, hazy cast is a danger with all LOG-based cameras if the colorist doesn't handle them well.

To make matters worse, shows are often broadcast with a flat, hazy look baked in, my guess from the bad old days of crap broadcast standards that have, for whatever reason, remained even though everyone is watching on a digital set these days. There's virtually no difference between a modern TV and computer display. Rec709+"broadcast range" is a bad joke but on top of that broadcasters often seemingly double the setup, at least in the States.

I couldn't help but be blown away by how much better The Walking Dead looks on BD versus how disappointed I was when it was broadcast and how, ironically, I thought it was the worst looking show on AMC from a photography standpoint. It was just how they were broadcasting it tuned for old people somehow watching on a B&W television I guess.

@BurnetRhoades You are correct in that there´s a bunch of lazy colorist looks. The bottom line is that alexa footage is mistreated in a majority of cases and that only adds to what might be more of a producer issue; saving up on lighting e.t.c. advocating very shallow DOF or anything that might lessen the amount of lights and time needed for each shot. In the end we get a LOT of end products which looks like DSLR, the expensive way. It´s not just shows, it goes for many, many commercials as well. Ugly as hell.

@Reinout I wouldn´t put Girls into that category even if it´s sort of flat; they have generally taken a lot of care in lighting setup and they don´t use excessively shallow DOF (which only smears a low-con / muted look). I haven´t watched it in any optimum conditions though.

One of the nicest looking shows I´ve seen on TV lately - Les Revenants, does indeed use both the Alexa and an emphasis towards teal and orange. However, the set seems to be the French Alps so it´s not your normal (boring) teal and orange. There´s plenty of green, and punchy red too.. Enough contrast and it´s all very well matched to the context of the show.

@RRRR I'd actually say, bottom line, this isn't an Alexa issue they're just a very popular camera right now. Go look up the specs on mainstream, decent budget, all-digital project and odds are you're going to find either Alexa or one of the RED cameras involved. That look is given to them though. It has nothing to do with the camera.

In fact, these looks originated from digital IP work on film-based projects that predate most of these cameras.

I don't agree that the duo-tone look, which could now be replicated faithfully with an Instagram-level filter and given as a prize inside every box of Cracker Jacks, is ugly. It works quite well, I think, and is quite pleasing, consistent with its complimentary color theory and all the science and psychology behind that. But it's so ubiquitous and homogenized now to the point of being boring.

@RRRR no film camera is a blank paper. Each film stock has its own response, it's own signature look. You're thinking far too myopically.

If a look originates with FILM-BASED DIGITAL IP it has absolutely NO correlation with any particular digital camera. That is a simple, basic truth.

edit: *also, there are thousands upon thousands of films shot on film, that look like nothing special, flat, flashed, boring, using the same cameras, same stock, same lenses as other films that look fantastic. This isn't a new phenomenon. This isn't specific to any camera, at all. *

You can´t change the TEXTURE of a certain digital camera, nor alter time related effects. This all adds to a look. Not just it´s color/light response. With film the camera is just a "container".

...and with digital the camera is the stock. I don't agree though that you can't change the "texture" of a digital camera, unless you're going for some esoteric use of the word besides a spatial quality. After noise-reduction, contrast and sharpness enhancement and then an application of either synthetic or scanned "grain" the original structure inherent to the camera is gone, utterly, and it would only be through knowing via log or record or first person witness to the process, from that point on, that you could know what image came from what camera.

On a GH2 you don't even have to go that far since even raw, unaltered footage is so varied thanks to patches and the near infinite combinations of lenses being used.