extreme colors, high contrast

[Graduating cinematographer]

Hi everyone,

 

Does anyone know what stock + processing method to choose if you want your colors to be very vibrant (almost to an extreme) with a high contrast.

I'm thinking of films like 'Amelie' or 'An Angel at my table'.

 

My location has grass fields with a stone road running through, surrounded by white cottages. The art direction/clothing will be very colorful (at least for my main character).

 

I will be shooting mainly outdoors, on 16mm.

 

If anyone has any ideas or comments...pls feel free!

 

L. x

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Reversal is high saturation. Cross-processed reversal is contrasty and high saturation, even with odd bent colours. Avoid modern V2 stocks as they are low-con and will look less saturated even if they aren't.

 

Someone please confirm this, I'm not really an expert!

 

Phil

[Graduating cinematographer]

Dear Phil,

 

Would you have any suggestions as to what stock would be suitable, I have the choice out of Kodak 16mm stocks. Is reversal film more expensive in the end, cross processing incl.?

Which are the modern V stocks you speak of?

 

Thanks for your 1st reply! I really appreciate it!

 

L. x

[Rachel Oliver]

Hi;

 

In my experience the most saturated and contrasty neg stock is Kodak 7245 (50D) combined with a decent polarizer it's seriously rich stuff, it also has very little grain indeed. Phil is totally right about reversal usually having hi sat too 7285 is designed to look very very saturated but with reversal you have little movement with exposure so for safety i'd say 7245, nothing is better for punchy outdoors work if thats the kinda look you want.

By the way is this for telecine or print?

Olly

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, I amazed at the number of people asking this type of question who never think to tell you whether the project is for telecine-only or will be printed from the negative. Makes a HUGE difference; you can make almost any stock look hi-con and saturated using digital color-correction tools.

Edited November 6, 2004 by David Mullen

[Dan Salzmann]

I agree 7245 with a polarizer is the first option. I find reversal stocks grainier than negative stocks and this is most pronounced in 16mm.

[John Pytlak RIP]

I agree, 7245 with a polarizing filter should really sparkle on a sunny day. Slight overexposure will give a bit more color saturation, but will still look natural. If you need more speed, give the new Kodak VISION2 250D Color Negative Film 7205 a try.

[Graduating cinematographer]

Hi everyone,

thank you for the many replies!

 

To answer your question - it's for telecine.

 

I am not very familiar with what the possibilities for digital color correction are nowadays. I wanted to create a certain look myself without relying on post production too much. I have only just found out that we are not allowed to use reversal film for this commercial, so I guess I am forced to approach it differently.

 

My cinematography tutor told me today that there is no big difference in the look of the different Kodak stocks, and that I'll have to produce these high color saturation effects with high contrast effects myself.

 

I have added a still for An Angel at my Table. My location looks quite similar, all though I cannot quite predict what the wheather will be like that day. Does it have to be sunny to get the best colors with the stocks mentioned in your replies? Do I over expose slightly and correct in the labs afterwards? This still is not exactly what the film looks like, those who've seen it might agree. It's the internet digitized version.

 

Will all colors be enhanced with a polarizing filter or just certain ones?

 

Hope to get more feedback, this is helping me loads. I know some of this stuff is very basic, but I am getting very little help from my institute.

 

X L

[Rachel Oliver]

Hi;

 

Over expose say half a stop and then in telecine, your colorist will pull it back to the correct exposure, just process it normally in the lab. A polarizer will enhance all colours but once you have rotated the filter in order to achieve the high contrast and sat you cannot move the camera to a vastly different angle without re-setting the filter as it all works by angle to the sun. I set mine by eye (rotating until clouds pop out of the sky and reflections are killed enhancing the colours) If you are going to pan or move the cam decide in advance where the most important part of the imge should be and set it for that moment. Polarizers tend to favour a still camera or at least one that moves along the same angle. You will work this out very quickly just by walking around with a polarizer rotating it as you go, they are amazing! If you want to achieve this punchy look in camera then shoot 7245 with say a Tiffen ultra pol, overexpose by around half a stop, and it should look very much like you want but yes the sun makes a huge difference to contrast and saturation. To achieve perfect results pray for full sun. Of course you could try out the new Vision 2 stocks and go crazy in post.

Olly

[mal]

I am also a film student and I am trying to achieve a similar look with ultra saturation and contrast.

 

My question is, on top of these recomendations, would you recomend pushing the stock a stop? If not, how come?

 

Thank you,

micahel

[Sam Wells]

"This still is not exactly what the film looks like, those who've seen it might agree. It's the internet digitized version."

 

Well yeah, I was going to say I don't remember "An Angel At My Table" being especially

saturated at all when I saw it on TV - PBS I think...

 

I push 45 routinely, nice punch to the colors.

 

But even there, with its sort of Provia look, it's not inherently like E100VS/5285.

 

-Sam

[David Mullen ASC]

You're basing the look of "Angel at My Table" on a retouched photo used for poster art??? It was shot in Super-16 (I believe), probably a polarizor outside for that shot.

 

Basically get as much color in front of the camera as you can, go for contrast, use a snappy stock like '45, then goose it up in the telecine color-correction.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Why not just do it digitally?

 

With conventional methods (i.e. push process) once you've done it, that's it, no going back. Just supposing you don't like it?

 

At least with digital you get the full range, and you can take a look at the different options, without completely screwing up the footage.

 

 

(Sorry just a big fan of digital technology, you can practically do anything you want to the picture)

 

Although, a while back someone told me that you get artefacts (for instance when using digital filters) I still don't get that, I mean, unless you compress it, it will be perfect. Better than any optical filters I'd of thought. Digital imaging is perfect.

 

Although having said that, I must be wrong, otherwise everyone would use digital imaging instead of push processing, filters e.t.c. Open to corrections.

Edited November 8, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Dominic Case]

An Angel at my Table was shot in 16mm (Stuart Dryburgh was the DoP) in NZ in 1989-90, and blown up to 35mm for release. It was in general well-exposed, but I don't recall any deliberate overexposure or such to create a vibrant or saturated look. If you are judging by the "internet digitised version" then it's anybody's guess what has happened to it since it was on film - when it looked fabulous for a 16mm originated show at the time.

 

Amelie on the other hand, was on 35mm and went through a digital intermediate (at Duboi in Paris if I recall) to get the rich warm colours in some sequences.

 

Not much in common there as far as the stock and process is concerned. Nor in the look of the final product - on film at any rate. What you see on the internet or production stills isn't much of a guide.

[Michael Nash]

Why not just do it digitally?

 

With conventional methods (i.e. push process) once you've done it, that's it, no going back.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, that's not true. You can just as easily desaturate a colorful image with digital tools, as you can pump up a normal chroma image with those same tools. You can also lower the gamma for a more "normal" look, as long as you haven't clipped or crushed any information on the negative beyond what you'd get normally. You might however get an increase in grain with push processing.

 

The more color information you start with, the fewer artifacts you'll get when you try to increase it (telecine noise notwithstanding). Anyone who's ever played with Photoshop can tell you about the blocky color banding you get when you go too far with saturation.

 

Where'd you get the idea that digital imaging is perfect? It's just another way of manipulating information, and still has limitations. Compression aside, you're limited to the info that's there, translated into 1' and 0's. If you need to create new information (like a transitional color value that wasn't in the original image), there's the potential to create information that appears unnatural because it was interpolated by a computer and not captured from the real world.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

You can just as easily desaturate a colourful image with digital tools

I take it de-saturating it wouldn't create any digital noise?

 

telecine noise notwithstanding

Ah.. That?s something new (to me)

 

But even so that's only when your over-saturating it, you just wouldn't do it that much.

 

Where'd you get the idea that digital imaging is perfect?

Digital is spot on, it's like a calculator, always get's it right.

 

there's the potential to create information that appears unnatural because it was interpolated by a computer and not captured from the real world

Uhh.. Yeh but a filter will only alter the colours, digital can alter colours, it's only a method of increasing a certain colour. So I wouldn't have thought there were be any difference between the two. Except for optical filters cut down light, can catch sun glare, and generally put holes in your pockets.

 

 

Is telecine noise REALLY that much of an issue? I always use Photoshop to manipulate my pictures, makes them look good and I've NEVER experienced any problems with noise.

 

I mean, could I make a film, manipulate the footage with computer, and not get any hassle in the cinema. Aslong as I didn't go too far.

Edited November 8, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Filip Plesha]

Daniel. You are talking about theorethical possibilities of digital technology...

Sure you can get 14-bit tiff files out of a scanner, and work at 4K or even 6K

and do some color correction and get noiseless "perfect" files. But who will pay for that?

 

And as for the "perfection" of digital computer imaging. It is "perfect" for making unlimited copies. But as for image manipulation, there is some loss in quality.

consider this:

You have high contrast scan, and you want to lower the contrast to

a pleasant smooth look. You use the curves and you create a lower contrast look.

The computer had to interpolate color values because they were not there when you opened the file.Try it in photoshop and you will see.

In a given file you have a limited number of shades of each of RGB colors.

When you lighen, or darken the image, or change contrast you are changing the number of these digital light steps in one stop range.

 

The very "marginal" color deph of 10-bit, is perfect if you don't touch anything, but very risky if you are into wild image manipulation. And if you are doing it in video, it is even worse.

 

Like I said, in theory you can get away with anything if you are using some 16-bit color deph and 4K resolution. But in reality, nobody ever did a real DI in 16-bit color.

 

And one more thing. The level of quality that you are satisified with while looking at images on your uncalibrated consumer computer monitor, would be far from sufficient for a quality film output.

Edited November 9, 2004 by Filip Plesha

[Michael Nash]

I take it de-saturating it wouldn't create any digital noise?

 

Is telecine noise REALLY that much of an issue? I always use Photoshop to manipulate my pictures, makes them look good and I've NEVER experienced any problems with noise.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You don't typically encounter any noise when you desaturate an image digitally.

 

I think you may be confusing "telecine noise" with the artifacts you get from increasing the chroma digitally. Telecine noise is what happens when the film negative is too dense, and the telecine has to increase its gain to get an acceptable level. Kind of like turning up the gain on a video camera when the light levels are too low. It's noise created during the capture of the image, before it goes through the digital pipe for color correction.

 

So no, you wouldn't get this in Photoshop because it's not the same thing. But it's not hard to introduce color artifacts from oversaturation of still images. There's color banding and quantizing if you go too far. Also keep in mind that blocky artifacts that might be acceptible in a single frame, become a flickery noisy mess when viewed at 24fps. The criteria for still images and motion images is not the same.

 

Of course there are differences between what a filter can give you, and what digital color correction can give you. It's true that digital correction offers a much wider variety of control than any filter. And in many cases, digital correction can create a look that's indistinguishable from what you might get with a filter (talking about color only here). But film still has its own look and nuances, and many cinematographers like the unique look of optical and chemical processes on an emulsion. There's something very subtle but still perceptible about the look of film that keeps the old methodology alive.

 

It's kind of like painters arguing over using oils or acrylics. Both tools can produce beautiful images, and in some cases identical images. But each one remains unique, and doesn't obsolete the other.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> The level of quality that you are satisified with while looking at images on your uncalibrated consumer

> computer monitor, would be far from sufficient for a quality film output.

 

I'm not sure I'd completely agree with that. A computer monitor is a hi-def component video display, there's nothing wrong with it as a display device. It might not be fantastically well calibrated, but most of them can be calibrated pretty nicely. It pains me to say this but to be honest if you set up a reasonable computer monitor with a colour chart you're probably doing more or less as well as someone with a twenty-grand Sony hi-def monitor.

 

It's also worth pointing out that if Daniel is manipulating high-bit photo scans in Photoshop in 16-bit mode, he's probably seeing similar imaging qualities and ability to manipulate in his stills to what you see in motion from a Spirit or something like that. Your average high-street photo scanner, considering the amount it's oversampling and the larger 35mm stills negative, is quite easily capable of competing in this arena - but of course it's only stills, and very slow. They also do tend to be a bit noisy on thin negs. However that should just make it clear that digital manipulation is not the be-all as it will make noise much more apparent.

 

Phil

[Filip Plesha]

Phil...sure as a video monitor, computer monitors do just fine.

 

I was comparing film print or a reversal film to computer monitor. The difference is rather big.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> I was comparing film print or a reversal film to computer monitor. The

> difference is rather big.

 

In what way, other than size? I'm sure that the Truelight engineering team at Filmlight would disagree; they make a living out of matching computer monitors to the projected print. But for that last precision of calibration (which you can of course buy) there's very little wrong with the average computer monitor as a hi-def video display.

 

Phil

[Filip Plesha]

Well, use a transperecy, put it on a light table, then look at a scan

on your monitor.

The image on the monitor does not have this "realism"

Same goes for a print on photo-paper.

It just looks more real and touchable than an image on an electric monitor.

 

There are some wonderful monitors, but not of them gives an effect of

a good paper print in your hands or a large transperecy wached on a lightable or

up against the sky.

Edited November 10, 2004 by Filip Plesha

[Roberto Hernandez]

I am shooting a project on miniDV and I would like to achieve an oversaturated high contrast look for a flashback scene. Is there a method of achieving this look using After Effects?

 

One of the last scenes in Spielberg's A.I., I believe, was shot using the bleach bypass process and enhancing the colors. It was a great look (I think Ch. 29 on the DVD). What is a good method for a bleach bypass look in After Effects?

 

I'd appreciate any help. Thanks.

 

Roberto Hernandez

[zrszach]

Has anyone mentioned using a neutral density filter to get this look?

It will have somewhat the same affect as the polarizer but you will be able to move with it.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

An ND filter will do nothing to contrast or saturation other than what you might achieve by underexposing slightly. It certainly won't have the same effect as a polariser on glare and reflection, which is why they sometimes appear to increase contrast.

 

These effects can easily be done in After Effects, yes.

 

Phil