Achieving Different "Looks" in Post

Chris Nzuriwatu · August 10, 2006

Greetings,

I have been shooting DV for some time now and am planning to make the leap to film with my first music video. I plan to shoot with the 435. I am curious though about acheiving different 'looks' in post production. How do I get the different variations in color and picture quality (bleach by-pass, the 'Traffic look' etc) when I shoot in film? With video I used Magic Bullet, Is there similar software that is used when working with film?

David Mullen ASC · August 10, 2006

There's a number of looks that can be created during the telecine transfer using the common DaVinci or Pogle color-corrector tools that are in the telecine suite.

You could, of course, really do a skip-bleach process to the film if that's what you want, or use diffusion on the camera, or a tobaccco filter, or cross-process reversal stock, etc. You aren't limited to doing it in post.

There isn't "software" that is applied directly to film, but there is software that can be applied to film transferred to video just as you can apply it to something shot on video. You wouldn't need to apply a Magic Bullet "film look" to something shot on film in the first place though.

Thom Stitt · August 10, 2006

A full digital intermediate seems to be pretty common in the postproduction workflow for higher budget film projects, definitely including music videos. Not many productions go through timings anymore, and moving from video, the film color timing experience may be a bit alien and not achieve the results you're exactly going for. In the end it's going to come down to the amount of money you have. I'm going to assume you don't have much, since you're just moving from DV (and not HD), but I'll discuss the option anyway.

If you have the budget for a full D.I. it'll probably be extremely comfortable for you if you've been using magic bullet to color correct. A good colorist on a Da Vinci 2K can work absolute magic. The software will look very familiar, the colorist will likely be very fast in giving you a look that you describe right there on the spot with real-time results.

And it doesn't have to be outrageously expensive - One alternative is to do a D.I. using HD, where the film is scanned to HD instead of data. You lose a bit doing this, but it's a good option for smaller budgets. You're still easily in the thousands though.

Sam Wells · August 10, 2006

In telecine, "looks" are relatively easy (given a professional level of competence & gear); what's difficult is keeping or enhancing the essence, nuances of what's on that negative you shot.

IMHO.

-Sam

David Mullen ASC · August 10, 2006

Why do people insist on using the term "digital intermediate" incorrectly???

"Digital Intermediate" describes film transferred to digital for the express purpose of cinema release, mainly in a transfer back to film after digital color-correction but now the term has expanded to include the digital cinema release as well.

Unless he specifically is planning on releasing his music video to the movie theaters, what you really mean is a traditional film-to-video transfer and digital color-correction.

Leo Anthony Vale · August 10, 2006

Why do people insist on using the term "digital intermediate" incorrectly???

---It's cool, with it and trendy.

& the Dick Withitts can pick up more girls in bars by talking about their D/I instead of their video transfer.

---LV

Douglas Hunter · August 10, 2006

Chris,

you ask a question that can't be answered. With all due respect you need to do your job as a DP: know your tools well (film in this case), Help your director find the look that is best for the project and then go about deciding what the best work flow for this particular project is, testing it and then see if its really right.

If you have a specific look you want to achieve, or effect you will be using then the good folks here can provide you with good detailed info. As it is, your post makes it sound like you are not ready to shoot film. This may not be true at all but its hard to tell.

Thom Stitt · August 10, 2006

Ah - you're right, you're right. D.I. is a term specific to theatrical release.

Ignorance is the true culprit here. The term's used so much I never actually realized it was as specific as it is.

That's all right. I heard someone mention a D.I. on an HD shoot once.

No, friend. Not a DI. Just a D.

David Mullen ASC · August 10, 2006

HD, rather than data, has been used as the digital step for some features shot on film doing a D.I.

As for shooting moves in HD and transferring to film, some people call that a D.I. but I think it's inaccurate, since digital isn't really the intermediate step, it's the origination step. I just call that an HD-to-film transfer.