Jump to content

power windows


Demian Barba

Recommended Posts

hi

 

i've read in different venues about this post-production tool that the dp can use to darken areas of the frame (right?). next week i'll have my first supervised transfer and it's sounds like it could be very handy, but i have no real idea about it. is it a common software to be found in all telecine facilities? is it just like adding a digital nd grad filter?

 

thanks

 

 

 

 

demian barba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

You have to ask in advance as to what features the telecine bay has. Power Windows is pretty common with DaVinci color-correctors, but some allow only one "event" at a time, others can do multiple windows in the same shot. Some DaVinci's have Defocusing, in some bays you can do keys (luminence and chroma), etc.

 

With Power Windows, you draw a rectangular or round shape around a selected area. Now you can adjust the image inside and outside of that area separately. Then you can soften the transition between the two areas. So if you boxed in the top of the frame with a Power Window, darkened that box, and softened the edges of that box, you end up with an ND grad effect. Someone's face is too dark but you don't want to brighten the whole shot, you can draw an oval around the face and then correct just the inside of that oval to be brighter, and then soften the edges of that oval.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

The thing with power windows, or the very similar functionality on a Pogle, is that they're either square or round with variable blurring. More recent software systems such as Lustre and Baselight can do any shape you can sketch, draw, plot, or otherwise get into the computer, as well as track them to features in the scene.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More recent software systems such as Lustre and Baselight can do any shape you can sketch, draw, plot, or otherwise get into the computer, as well as track them to features in the scene.

 

True, except that you won't find Lustres or Baselights in telecine suites, because they're not designed to work with live input. The only way you could use these devices for a film transfer would be to do a "technical" grade to image files, then bring those image files into the Lustre or Baselight system. Unfortunately, no matter how proper the "technical" grade is, you won't have the latitude that you will when working directly from the film, as you do in a telecine situation - unless you do a full 2K or higher scan, in which case you're talking about a different methodology altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

Yes, After Effects will do most things Baselight will do, just more slowly and with other limitations in areas like bit depth and print emulation. You can have arbitrary shapes which can change over the course of the shot, it's keyframable. If you're interested in having a look contact me offlist.

 

Mike: It's certainly true that they need to work from image files, but certain features, like tracking motion to the image, inherently requires that as it needs random access to the frames so it's a tradeoff of functionality. I guess you could probably do it, the same way they do frame-averaging noise reduction, but it's a bit of a workaround.

 

Also, if you had a Spirit transfer your stuff to files, either quickly as HD or at 15fps as 2K, how would the data you'd be working with in the software be any different to what you'd be working with on the telecine? Okay, certain imaging parameters of the analogue and optical parts of the telecine are controllable from the desk, which you don't get once it's files, but as far as I understand it the output should be everything you can fit into a 10bit DPX, just as if it had come off an Arriscan or whatever.

 

Yes, blurring the boundaries between telecine and scanner, I know.

 

Phil

Edited by Phil Rhodes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have Baselight since version 1.

One big advantage is that it removes the pressure from the telecine suite. It is much more comfortable to do disk-to-disk grading than a direct feed from a telecine.

 

The images already on disk are just zeros and ones and won't change unless ordered to. The work on a Baselight can be resumed anytime, in six months .. the images will be identical, try that on a telecine. Also I can jump instantly to the first or the last frame of the show, put 9 different parts simultaneously on the screen side by side, etc..

 

The future of telecine is as a pure technical scanner where D-min is measured and set to Cineon values of 95 with no further intervention of the operator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The future of telecine is as a pure technical scanner where D-min is measured and set to Cineon values of 95 with no further intervention of the operator.

 

I don't necessarily disagree. But the original question wasn't about the future, it was about right now, in New York telecine facilities (at least I assume so, judging by the poster's location) during supervised transfer sessions. I don't know of any that are using software based color correctors. If someone here does, I'd like them to post and let me know about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, if you had a Spirit transfer your stuff to files, either quickly as HD or at 15fps as 2K, how would the data you'd be working with in the software be any different to what you'd be working with on the telecine? Okay, certain imaging parameters of the analogue and optical parts of the telecine are controllable from the desk, which you don't get once it's files, but as far as I understand it the output should be everything you can fit into a 10bit DPX, just as if it had come off an Arriscan or whatever.

 

If you reread my previous post, I did make that distinction. I mentioned that my comments were different if you were talking about a 2K or higher scan, as the methodology is different in terms of how the telecine is set up, as is the file format (10 bit log being rather equivalent to 12 or even 16 bit linear).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Beside being a great tool, Power Windows is also an excuse for people who do not know how to achieve the desired look by proper lighting and exposure. I have seen some DPs doing sloppy work while shooting, then they spent a lot of time in post production, blowing the producer's money.

I despise that attitude of "fixing it" or "giving it a look" in post - basically, the look and the lighting should be in the telecined negative, not being created by fiddling around with imaging tools.

Reminds me of idiots telling me that they need no meter because "you know, Kodak negative has more than 5 stops latitude". :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beside being a great tool, Power Windows is also an excuse for people who do not know how to achieve the desired look by proper lighting and exposure. I have seen some DPs  doing sloppy work while shooting, then they spent a lot of time in post production, blowing the producer's money. :angry:

 

Not long ago I'm shooting a commercial, the director loves the shot *except* there's a white tile roof 5 stops + over what I'd like, gee, this is fairly low budget but even IF I'd had a full lighting grip crew jeez where would we put a butterfly, what do I use a Condor ?

 

Well maybe some kind of grad tipped of level, except etc..

 

Or I just roll it. :D How much of the producers money is blown when a colorist solves the problem in literally two minutes of a telecine session ? Let's do the math.

 

-Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Problem is you tweak anyway, even if you exposed it perfectly, so there's no real time saved in TK.

 

I admit that I'm a sloppy at light readings - I measure the key light and maybe the background/window or whatever, and the rest I light to eye. Sometimes, you do mistakes and have to tweak a little more in post, but that's just the way it happens. You never have time on set to do exactly as you want (it would be really nice to have that time someday), so I think this is a fair compromise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beside being a great tool, Power Windows is also an excuse for people who do not know how to achieve the desired look by proper lighting and exposure. I have seen some DPs  doing sloppy work while shooting, then they spent a lot of time in post production, blowing the producer's money.

I despise that attitude of "fixing it" or "giving it a look" in post - basically, the look and the lighting should be in the telecined negative, not being created by fiddling around with imaging tools.

Reminds me of idiots telling me that they need no meter because "you know, Kodak negative has more than 5 stops latitude".  :angry:

I disagree. I think it all depends on making clever decisions on what to do where and when. This attitude of "having it all right on negative" should not be generalised. It depends.

If you know what stages of postproduction the images will pass and you know what you can do there, it sometimes saves a lot of time, stress and money not to do everything on set. And in some cases it might even look better ;-)

As I said it all comes down of weighing the pros and cons and making the right decisions on set, which of course you can only do if you have an overview and have been informed about he complete chain...

 

I've seen totally wrong decisions from both extremes...

 

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. I think it all depends on making clever decisions on what to do where and when. This attitude of "having it all right on negative" should not be generalised. It depends. -k

 

I've shot lots of reversal film and have a long history so to speak of "having (to get) it all right on the 'negative' in fact I have no issue with that....existentially I'm OK with it.

 

but cut to 2005 and here I am in a telecine suite, camera neg up on the machine with NO 'precedent' of even a film workprint, now what is the "rightness" ? if not whatever the I decide it is if the colorist can do it ?

 

Maybe we can't speak of 'right' now, but of 'relative'....

 

-Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@SamWells:

 

I see what you mean.

More sophisticated tools always means more opportunity to abuse (meaning: doing the same work a little less careful or a bit cheaper, mostly with a slight loss in quality).

 

It's the same with high speed film and high speed lenses in the last two decades.

For every DP with taste and talent who made sensible use of low light levels and wide f-stops, there's been an army of less talented people who were excited about lighting their set with two flashlights and a Budweiser neon sign.

This resulted in years of (what I would call) really bad cinematography with bland, depressingly lit, supergrainy images not serving the stories in any way-- but what does it all mean?

 

Nothing! :lol:

 

Should better tools be taken away because some people make bad use of technology?

Certainly not!

 

And regarding "getting it on film correctly", this is no virtue in itself, but it will reduce the desire of other *creative* people to play around with the DPs work.

That said, I have to add that all telecine/colorist people I ever met were great guys/gals and had a great remar@kable sense of artistic judgment. B)

 

 

@tenobell

Yeah, music videos and commercials are quite a different world.

I was referring to feature films where the cinematography more serves the narrative.

Edited by Christian Appelt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've shot lots of reversal film and have a long history so to speak of "having (to get) it all right on the 'negative'  in fact I have no issue with that....existentially I'm OK with it.

 

but cut to 2005 and here I am in a telecine suite, camera neg up on the machine with NO 'precedent' of even a film workprint, now what is the "rightness" ? if not whatever the  I decide it is if the colorist can do it ?

 

Maybe we can't speak of 'right' now, but of 'relative'....

 

-Sam

 

...not sure whether I understood (sorry, my english...)

 

Lets put it like that. I think the telecine is not just a "corrective" means but rather an extension to your toolset and allows for image designs which are not or really difficult to achieve on set. Then, there are other aspects of it which could be done at both stages. Here I think, it depends on external factors such as time/money and preferences where you should do what. And finally there are things which are only possible to achieve on set (or faked at the expense of money and quality in post).

Of course you can try and do everything on set which depending on your project might be alright, but I've yet to see a situation where nobody wanted some minor correctives or additional manipulations.

Life is not perfect and especially at shooting it's hard to get it 100% (and I mean 100) but even it you would, with the possibilies of the telecine you might get 120 %

 

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...not sure whether I understood (sorry, my english...)

-k

 

no, your English is fine, it's my mangled syntax that's the problem.

 

Can we say maybe, the world of DI brings us closer to the famous remark of Ansel Adams (paraphrased) the negative is the score and the print is the performance" ?

 

(maybe I should put "print" in quotes as it might not be a print, always...)

 

-Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...