Marty Hamrick Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 I was having lunch with a friend of mine who used to shoot a lot high end commercials,mostly on 35mm.Recently he sold his company and now works for the same station I do producing the promotional spots.He told me was looking to unload his Tiffen filter set.He said he uses the software in post. I have no experience with these types of software and I was wondering,is it really that similar?I've always preffered to get my effects in camera.I've often prided myself on the fact that when I turn in my video,or film for that matter over to an editor or colorist,very little was needed.What are the advantages to shooting naked and doing your filtration in post?I'm speaking more of such filters as diffusion,fog or haze,as well as dot texture filters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Hughes Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 (edited) The most obvious advantage adding effects filters in post is you can decide to not use that filter after it's been shot, or set for a greater or lesser degree of intensity. If your filter effect is done in-camera, it better be what you had in mind, otherwise you're going to have to re-shoot. Edited July 28, 2007 by Robert Hughes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Earl Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 The main advantage of using filters in post is that you have more control over the effect, even down to animating the effect or adding masks/mattes to a filter so it only effects one part of the image - a ND filter that only affects the sky for example. The disadvantage is that there are some things happening optically that are hard to reproduce in post to get the same effect as you would in-camera. For example a grad filter in post won't bring back values that have gone past white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chris Keth Posted July 29, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted July 29, 2007 (edited) Here are my preferences. Like a lot of things, they are preferences and not necessarily for you: I generally like to do overall color tints in post. Exceptions to this are very strong color and brown tones. Strong color I usually use a lighter version of that I want so I can time it to the final color with less potential noise. It also allows me to entirely remove the effect, which probably wouldn't be plausible had I gone the whole 9 yards with a very strong color. An except ion to this exception is very strong red. I like doing this in camera because of the slightly unsharp look it makes on film. For brown tones, I just use the exact filter I want because browns are tricky to get right in RGB numbers for some reason. Grads I prefer in camera, especially ones that incorporate some kind of ND. I think the end result is usually richer that way. Diffusion filters could go either way, but I prefer in camera. I'm not entirely sure why, I'm sure a good colorist could replicate most of the types of diffusion, if not all of them. Edited July 29, 2007 by Chris Keth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Salzmann Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 Seems like with diffusion in post the grain of the film is affected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Thomson Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 I've been wondering about shooting in black & white... If you shot in color and added green or red filters digitally before converting to black & white, would there be a considerable loss in quality/exposure/anything? I know this is pretty weak and should just learn how to shoot B&W properly, but it could stop you from losing green stuff against red if you didn't know what you were doing. (Which I don't!) I guess this would only be useful if you were shooting on film, in which case you'd be shooting on B&W film stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chris Keth Posted July 31, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted July 31, 2007 I've been wondering about shooting in black & white...If you shot in color and added green or red filters digitally before converting to black & white, would there be a considerable loss in quality/exposure/anything? I know this is pretty weak and should just learn how to shoot B&W properly, but it could stop you from losing green stuff against red if you didn't know what you were doing. (Which I don't!) I guess this would only be useful if you were shooting on film, in which case you'd be shooting on B&W film stock. Yes, it would control contrast as if you shot B&W film. Nearly every filter has a filter factor so there could potentially be an exposure loss but most B&W filters aren't too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted July 31, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted July 31, 2007 What are the advantages to shooting naked and doing your filtration in post? The big advantages are that you can take your time and change your mind. But the problem with doing nothing in production is that the executives, producers, director, and editor will all spend several weeks or months looking at it that way. If you lay a really heavy treatment on it in color correction, that can come as a surprise to them. Therefore, the smart way to go with filtration and exposure is to take it in the direction you want to go, but not so far as to paint yourself into a corner. You can always crush the blacks some more, blow out more of the whites, make it browner or softer or whatever. But what you put out of the dynamic range of the system in production -- be it film or HD -- you can't get back. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matias Nicolas Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 generally like to do overall color tints in post. Exceptions to this are very strong color and brown tones. Strong color I usually use a lighter version of that I want so I can time it to the final color with less potential noise. It also allows me to entirely remove the effect, which probably wouldn't be plausible had I gone the whole 9 yards with a very strong color. An except ion to this exception is very strong red. I like doing this in camera because of the slightly unsharp look it makes on film. For brown tones, I just use the exact filter I want because browns are tricky to get right in RGB numbers for some reason. Im shooting a shortcut in hd, sony hdv-z1 , I was thinking on usin a tobac filter in camera, but I realize, that perhaps I will be needing the stop I loose with the filter... so I was thinking to do it in post... till now !! that I red your article... can you explain me more about your expierence in brown correction or filter in camera? thanks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Savoie Posted July 31, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted July 31, 2007 Although you may add filter-like effects in post it is the general perceived wisdom to add the filters / effects in camera. Like most shooters I prefer in camera filtration. Post added filtration ? either electronic or physically adding filtration in the telecine light path looks quite different. Having said that I often find during telecine we can make the image that bit better with massages during the transfer. ND mattes (with and without color) come to mind as well as excluding or toning down certain colors to hide blemishes for example. Additionally dynamic ND added in transfer is lovely to assist in masking extreme focus pulls ? as much of my work is outdoor location 4-8 stop exposure pulls during tilts, pans and jib shots are not uncommon. The ability to add dynamic ND during a running shot / move in post is a very useful tool. It can smooth out any bumps in the pull. At times I?ll shoot some shots without a pull ? sometimes we won?t have a gear/motor for exposure when the cameras 25 feet up on a jib ? I?ll shoot it at the minimum, maximum and middle exposure and add the correct ND to bring it in line during telecine. With a skilled Op on a Spirit you often won?t know the difference between the three takes. As a producer/director/shooter I?m very lucky, I get to shepard the image every step of the way. The key is to work with one telecine Op for a number of years ? a good one will have a number of tricks up their sleeve and can really make your images sing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristian Olariu Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Personally, I prefer to get a clean image in camera, then alter it in post. There is however a filter that I will always use on the camera: the polarizer. No matter what you do in post, I have never seen results that would compare to what a polarizer could do. There are another couple that look nice, not to mention the gradient ND filters, which always helped me so much. Cris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted July 31, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted July 31, 2007 No matter what you do in post, I have never seen results that would compare to what a polarizer could do. There's a good reason for that. Polarization, if any, exists only in the light from the actual scene. Film and chips can record color and brightness, but not polarization. The same goes for focus, using split diopters, and for ND grads to pull bright areas into the dynamic range of the system. They have to be done in production, they can't be fixed in post. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Savoie Posted August 1, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted August 1, 2007 Although I have a full range of ND filters, that see steady use, ND in post is possible and effective. I take your points John and agree fully on the use of polarizers but I differ on post-production ND ? or the exposure differences within a single frame, which is really what we are talking about. The combination of the outstanding latitude of today?s film stock and modern telecines, like the Spirit, offer the ability to correct extreme exposure differences during telecine. If we were working and posting in film this would be different, however I shoot on film and deliver video and am speaking from this prospective. To be clear I prefer in camera filtration but I am continually amazed by what the latest stock/telecines are capable of in terms of exposure and latitude. cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Michael Nash Posted August 1, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted August 1, 2007 But the problem with doing nothing in production is that the executives, producers, director, and editor will all spend several weeks or months looking at it that way. If you lay a really heavy treatment on it in color correction, that can come as a surprise to them. Therefore, the smart way to go with filtration and exposure is to take it in the direction you want to go, but not so far as to paint yourself into a corner.-- J.S. I wish I could credit the quote, but someone once said "flexibility in post means flexibility for someone else to screw it up." In the end it's a judgement call. There's no right or wrong way much of the time (although there are still some things optics can do that digital manipulation has a harder time replicating). You just have to pick which method is going to work best for your particular situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Wuijts Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 I wish I could credit the quote, but someone once said "flexibility in post means flexibility for someone else to screw it up." In the end it's a judgement call. There's no right or wrong way much of the time (although there are still some things optics can do that digital manipulation has a harder time replicating). You just have to pick which method is going to work best for your particular situation. sounds a lot like statements made by by Gordon Willis and Owen Roizman which I've read in seventies issues of AC (on shooting The Godfather, The Exorcist and The French Connection) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted August 1, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted August 1, 2007 I wish I could credit the quote, but someone once said "flexibility in post means flexibility for someone else to screw it up." Yes, you have to take into consideration the politics of the project, the degree of involvement you'll have in post, and the competence of the people doing it. In some cases, you can make sure you get the look you want by putting some stuff out of the dynamic range of the system. If doing that ties the hands of the people who hired you, who will they hire to shoot their next project? ;-) -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tony Brown Posted August 1, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted August 1, 2007 Although I have a full range of ND filters, that see steady use, ND in post is possible and effective. Rubbish. Sorry but you're missing the point of ND's. Its not to control exposure, its to control Depth of field, can you do that in post? No GOLDEN rule. Do it in camera every time. You may not be in control of the post, so at least if you've conveyed your intentions in camera you have some chance of it being realised in the final image. Your job, the reason you are being paid, is to present an image, a mood, as closely as you possibly can on the neg to the brief. You are not likely to attempt something that you have not discussed with the director. Its not your place to decide to throw a scene Storm Blue without consultation. Make people aware of your opinion / intentions. Post is for tweaking..... And with respect " the ability to correct extreme exposure differences during telecine" if you're that far out, get another job or get a new AC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted August 2, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted August 2, 2007 This is part of the problem with shooting video. You almost always shoot very flat. Everyone assumes you are bad. Then you whiz it up in post, and everyone assumes you've gone nuts. Lose-lose scenario. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Savoie Posted August 2, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted August 2, 2007 Rubbish. Sorry but you're missing the point of ND's. Its not to control exposure, its to control Depth of field, <snip> Hi Tony, In the nicest possible way your incorrect and inaccurate. Many NDs such as Attenuators and Grads are designed specifically for exposure control. And although you may use strait NDs, which is what I assume your refering to, for DOF control I use them more often to shoot at optimized stops in outdoor locations where light control isn't possible or cost effective. In these locations, where we often find a 15 stop difference in light levels, we commonly use ND masks in post during telecine to additionally control the contrast. With experience you'll find many cinematography tools have multiple uses. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chris Keth Posted August 2, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted August 2, 2007 This is part of the problem with shooting video. You almost always shoot very flat. Everyone assumes you are bad. Then you whiz it up in post, and everyone assumes you've gone nuts. Lose-lose scenario. Phil Very true. I nearly failed a quarter of my thesis because of the prof's opinion of my flat video dailies. I had to prove to her that it was intentional and that the footage would grade well before she would give me a grade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Savoie Posted August 2, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted August 2, 2007 Additionally dynamic ND added in transfer is lovely to assist in masking extreme focus pulls ? as much of my work is outdoor location 4-8 stop exposure pulls during tilts, pans and jib shots are not uncommon. Ahhh, My mistake I ment to say extreme exposure pulls - NOT focus pulls. My mistake. Appologies to all concerned! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tony Brown Posted August 2, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted August 2, 2007 Hi Tony, In the nicest possible way your incorrect and inaccurate. Many NDs such as Attenuators and Grads are designed specifically for exposure control. And although you may use strait NDs, which is what I assume your refering to, for DOF control I use them more often to shoot at optimized stops in outdoor locations where light control isn't possible or cost effective. In these locations, where we often find a 15 stop difference in light levels, we commonly use ND masks in post during telecine to additionally control the contrast. With experience you'll find many cinematography tools have multiple uses. Cheers Phil, with respect to you..... No I'm not wrong, I'm spot on. If I ask for an ND its an overall. Period. If I want a grad I ask for a grad, (However Attenuators are Blenders :) ) I would advise you never order a set of ND's and expect to get Grads and Blenders, you'll get overall .3 / .6 / .9 and if you're lucky 1.2. Like yourself I carry my own Any way. grads and blenders will pull down the exposure in specific areas to keep the detail on the neg (or conversely push unwanted detail into black). You cant do that in Post. You can improve it, you can enhance it, but if the information isn't there to start with you can do nada. "With experience" you'll find you'll want to do it in camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Metzger Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Remember this too; sometimes you don't get asked to grade your film, and people then assume that your artistry is very flat. I've had a director ignore my requests to CC a commercial we shot, and then he complained about the colors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Savoie Posted August 2, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted August 2, 2007 Phil, with respect to you.....No I'm not wrong, I'm spot on. If I ask for an ND its an overall. Period. If I want a grad I ask for a grad, (However Attenuators are Blenders :) ) I would advise you never order a set of ND's and expect to get Grads and Blenders, you'll get overall .3 / .6 / .9 and if you're lucky 1.2. Like yourself I carry my own Any way. grads and blenders will pull down the exposure in specific areas to keep the detail on the neg (or conversely push unwanted detail into black). You cant do that in Post. You can improve it, you can enhance it, but if the information isn't there to start with you can do nada. "With experience" you'll find you'll want to do it in camera. Tony my Dear Chap, Thanks for your advice. If you review my posts on this topic please take on board that I have advocated in camera filtration from the start. I don't feel I'm missing the point of NDs as you put it, how we choose to use them creatively is up to us as cinematographers. NDs are used to control exposure, be it the entire image or parts of it. Period. If you want to use this exposure control to limit DOF fine, if I choose to use an attenuator on a landscape to control contrast that?s jolly good too. It?s all about exposure control, strait ND, hard or soft grad, attenuator or blender. Obviously we are controlling the exposure to get the most out of the stock/image. When transferring during post one may also control exposure on the entire image or parts of it with mattes or keys if you choose to. But this is very different to in camera treatment, which I also mentioned as it?s the point of the thread. Clearly we all strive to get as much information on the original negative, which is why we filter in camera in the first place. I'm sorry in my original post I penned focus pull when I meant to say exposure pull, if you read through it this was clearly my meaning. My mistake, due to jet lag and not enough coffee. Perhaps this is where our mis-communication started. I've got a good idea Tony, with respect please understand, a cup of coffee for me and less caffeine for you. ;-) Failing that how about a jar sometime, I'm in country, just back from a shoot, at my home in Wales. Was Gunther Zoeh at Arri able to assist you with your neg scratching problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tony Brown Posted August 2, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted August 2, 2007 Tony my Dear Chap, Thanks for your advice. If you review my posts on this topic please take on board that I have advocated in camera filtration from the start. I don't feel I'm missing the point of NDs as you put it, how we choose to use them creatively is up to us as cinematographers. NDs are used to control exposure, be it the entire image or parts of it. Period. If you want to use this exposure control to limit DOF fine, if I choose to use an attenuator on a landscape to control contrast that’s jolly good too. It’s all about exposure control, strait ND, hard or soft grad, attenuator or blender. Obviously we are controlling the exposure to get the most out of the stock/image. When transferring during post one may also control exposure on the entire image or parts of it with mattes or keys if you choose to. But this is very different to in camera treatment, which I also mentioned as it’s the point of the thread. Clearly we all strive to get as much information on the original negative, which is why we filter in camera in the first place. I'm sorry in my original post I penned focus pull when I meant to say exposure pull, if you read through it this was clearly my meaning. My mistake, due to jet lag and not enough coffee. Perhaps this is where our mis-communication started. I've got a good idea Tony, with respect please understand, a cup of coffee for me and less caffeine for you. ;-) Failing that how about a jar sometime, I'm in country, just back from a shoot, at my home in Wales. Was Gunther Zoeh at Arri able to assist you with your neg scratching problem? Fair enough, we'll finish this over a pint.... (I'll still be right though) :) No in fact Gunther was extremely dismissive of the problem "nobody else has had a problem" he told me. Well thats not true, it seems this is a problem on some 235's. My camera went back to Arri GB, who couldn't find a problem until a technician from Movietech went down there.....suddenly it was 'Oh, THAT scratch.....' Its been in Munich ever since. Not bothered as they've give us a loan camera so they can take as long as they like. A theory put to me by Greig Fraser in Oz who has a very similar problem, is that the extra tension on 435 mags may cause the smaller motor to struggle a little, affecting the tension on the neg as it passes through the mech. I dont think we'll ever get an answer from Arri, I'd love to be proved wrong, but it'll be interesting to see how they propose to cure the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now