Jump to content

4k telecine for D.I


Landon D. Parks

Recommended Posts

Guest Kai.w
Although, I will add the digital colour based around an optical filter, for the amount of blue I want, just colouring it in post will create massive amounts of digital noise. (I'll use an optical filter, and then touch it up digitally)

 

Who told you that? This is nonsense. Adding a colour tint in post does not add any noise. If all it covers it.

If you have shot a bluetinted image and want a neutral one, that might give you noise problems but not this way around...

 

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
Who told you that? This is nonsense. Adding a colour tint in post does not add any noise. If all it covers it.

If you have shot a bluetinted image and want a neutral one, that might give you noise problems but not this way around...

 

-k

Well, I was told, and I know from experience:

 

Original Picture:

 

nonoise.jpg

 

 

Edited Picture:

 

noise.jpg

 

 

Noise just appears so much more with strong colours. I wouldn't say it added noise, just brings it out.

Edited by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I have to say Daniel, being professional does mean that you get paid for what you do. Amateur simply means that you do it for the love of doing something, and not necessarily for the monetary gain (sadly, amateur has picked up some extremely negative connotations over the years).

 

Being professional has nothing to do with how elite you are or how much experience you have. It simply means you are doing the work for gain. If you are getting paid, regulary, to shoot you are a professional. If you are doing it because it is something you love to do AND you're not getting paid, you are an amateur.

 

But being an amateur is not something to be embarrassed about or rebel against. In fact, rebellion in a profession where people are made and broken by who they know and who likes them is not for those who are just starting out.

 

You're doing interesting things with photoshop, but these are not thing that are at all hard to do. Grading and setting tone for an entire motion picture is not the easy task you relegate it to being, and if it were there would be no professional colorists in the business, a director would just sit down at their keyboard with PhotoshopMOTION (or some other program for motion picture use) and play around with it for a while.

 

Your aspirations are admirable, but you have to be careful not to be arrogant. Quite frankly, all of the 16 year old "I'm going to be famous, look how easy this is" posts that pop up every few weeks really get on my nerves, as I am trying hard to learn things on this board, and I feel insulted that people younger than myself come off as rude and arrogant.

 

Learn all you can, but do so humbly. Nothing is as easy as it first seems, and the deeper you go the more complicated it becomes (most of the time).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
I have to say Daniel, being professional does mean that you get paid for what you do. Amateur simply means that you do it for the love of doing something, and not necessarily for the monetary gain (sadly, amateur has picked up some extremely negative connotations over the years).

 

Being professional has nothing to do with how elite you are or how much experience you have. It simply means you are doing the work for gain. If you are getting paid, regulary, to shoot you are a professional. If you are doing it because it is something you love to do AND you're not getting paid, you are an amateur.

Well, it's a new meaning of the word to me.

 

But being an amateur is not something to be embarrassed about or rebel against.

I wouldn't rebel against the fact that I'm an amateur, because I am an amateur and I know it. But, on the other hand, I do know a little about film making, it just annoys me when people treat as though I know jack all and I'm just another 16 year old punk.

 

You're doing interesting things with photoshop, but these are not thing that are at all hard to do. Grading and setting tone for an entire motion picture is not the easy task you relegate it to being, and if it were there would be no professional colorists in the business, a director would just sit down at their keyboard with PhotoshopMOTION (or some other program for motion picture use) and play around with it for a while.

I will admit, colour grading can be a very skill demanding process, but only if you're doing a lot of work to the image. For instance I took a photo with 5600k film but with 3200k lighting, I went straight onto photoshop and applied a blue filter to fix it. Anyone can do that. Although, when it comes to more advanced stuff, you really need some experience first.

 

The more experience you have, you just seem to get better and better at it. You can judge automatically in your mind, how much of this colour, how much more or less contrast e.t.c.

 

I have about a years experience with Photoshop. Not a lot you think, but, with a year?s experience you can do some amazing things.

 

Your aspirations are admirable, but you have to be careful not to be arrogant. Quite frankly, all of the 16 year old "I'm going to be famous, look how easy this is" posts that pop up every few weeks really get on my nerves, as I am trying hard to learn things on this board, and I feel insulted that people younger than myself come off as rude and arrogant.

 

Learn all you can, but do so humbly. Nothing is as easy as it first seems, and the deeper you go the more complicated it becomes (most of the time).

Well, I have to agree. But on something I have 1st hand experience in, I can't accept what a lot of people say.

 

It's like someone coming up to you and saying with auto focus you need to twist the focusing ring round, and with manual the camera focuses for you. But, the person who is telling you that is more experienced.

But just because they are more experienced, doesn't mean I'll accept it. IF I know I'm right.

 

If there is something I don?t know or never had any experience in before, then I'll shut up and listen, because I know at the end of the day they have had experience in this stuff before, and I haven?t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I wish people would stop thinking that all a colorist does is twist RGB pots, contrast and brightness. It's so far removed from that it isn't even funny - it takes years and years and years

to get good at it (and most never do).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Side-scrolling is the devil. ;)

 

(Just a quick note to Daniel and anyone else posting images, please resize them! While it is not a written rule, I would recommend keeping widths under 800 pixels - this way, side-scrolling will be unnecessary for most users, and those who still run at 800x600 won't need to scroll too far. Thanks)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Kai.w
Well, I was told, and I know from experience:

Noise just appears so much more with strong colours. I wouldn't say it added noise, just brings it out.

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding (especially the word "adding" and ">digital< noise" was a little misleading). As you said if you do such things that change contrast or raise the dark parts the inherent noise might become more visible...

 

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
I wish people would stop thinking that all a colorist does is twist RGB pots, contrast and brightness. It's so far removed from that it isn't even funny - it takes years and years and years

to get good at it (and most never do).

Well perhaps all Landon wanted to do with his film was a few contrast, brightness and colour adjustments.

 

The only thing I'd say experience helps in, is judging how much is too much. For instance most newbies will put way too much contrast in a picture.

 

If there is something else that is hard to do, then please share it. Because so far, it all seems a walk in the park to me.

 

Just a quick note to Daniel and anyone else posting images, please resize them! While it is not a written rule, I would recommend keeping widths under 800 pixels - this way, side-scrolling will be unnecessary for most users, and those who still run at 800x600 won't need to scroll too far. Thanks

Yeh sorry, I can notice it now, get's right on my nerves.

Edited by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

Oh I managed to cut the pictures down, luckily I have them hosted on my ftp so I could replace them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hey Daniel,

 

It's not just about making a pretty picture. There are a mountain of things that have to be known concerning outputs. Will it go to DVD? Back to film? Do you have a good presentation grade monitor and card so you can see your changes on something other than a computer monitor? Every output direction, computer, card, monitoring device has adjustment needs of some kind. And that's just your gear. How will your stuff conform to other people's gear. That means going anywhere from commercial post houses to home DVD players. The numbers, tricks and even software variations are STAGGERING to manage. Just keep that in mind when you equate yourself to a professional. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
Hey Daniel,

 

It's not just about making a pretty picture. There are a mountain of things that have to be known concerning outputs. Will it go to DVD? Back to film? Do you have a good presentation grade monitor and card so you can see your changes on something other than a computer monitor? Every output direction, computer, card, monitoring device has adjustment needs of some kind. And that's just your gear. How will your stuff conform to other people's gear. That means going anywhere from commercial post houses to home DVD players. The numbers, tricks and even software variations are STAGGERING to manage. Just keep that in mind when you equate yourself to a professional. :unsure:

Well, yeh good point, output formats could be trouble I suppose. I wouldn't call myself a pro though, not meaning to sound arrogant but just the fact that I can edit stills nicely, and video footage that is going to TV.

 

But yeh, tnx for bringing up that point. I never actually thought about colouring the film to suit different formats, for instance contrast levels on film may vary to TV, so the amount of contrast I use on a film for TV, might come out overly-contrasted on film. You'd need to have a lot of experience to know exactly what the differences are.

 

Fair enough. Got me on that one :o

Edited by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

Generally I would wire up a TV to my computer to do edits, although, are there differences when it comes to burning it to film as opposed to video?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hey Daniel,

 

Darn tootin' there are differences. I'm having to sus that out now. Before, I was working DV to Pinnacle board to DVD output. The gamma levels as well as colors had to be managed. Then there's the broadcast color thing. I had to buy ViviClips waveform monitor software to keep the levels in parameters. I'm moving to 35mm film to Matrox RT.X100 board and have to relearn everything all over again to meet the needs of output to DVD and, it is to be hoped, back to film. Someone here would probably be ready to give you the big issues on your Q's. I'm still too new at it to know the right specifics to your Q. I could easily give you a f----d-up answer and not even know it. Good luck on your future projects. I'm always happy to see ppl gutsing their way into movie making. You got the guts, dude. Keep it up.

 

 

 

Generally I would wire up a TV to my computer to do edits, although, are there differences when it comes to burning it to film as opposed to video?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
are there differences when it comes to burning it to film as opposed to video?

 

yes - not to get too deep into it (cos it is a science in its own right), how a "video" signal looks on film is subject to what film stock was used, what film recorder was used etc. The (brief) answer is in "look up tables", where a given formula is applied to a digital image for a given film stock to get it to produce something close to your digital image.

 

Have a look at Filmlight's Truelight product.

 

Of course, after we go to such lengths to match digit and film, we dump the film in a bath full of chemicals and hope for the best. When we have had issues with the final print not looking like the digital "master", it has always been down to issues at the lab.

 

David Cox

Baraka Post Production Ltd

www.baraka.co.uk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

The question "are there differences" is kind of wide.

 

It would be entirely possible to create a lookup table that make the filmout look like any other reference you happened to find useful, including your bedroom TV set. This would not be usual practice, obviously, but it's possible to make some attempt to match anything. So, in that sense, you could grade on your TV screen, and not in theory have any differences on the filmout at all.

 

However, more usually you'd verify the way it looked on a properly set-up monitor that related to the filmout in a known way. This means going to a facility that has it all set up so it works out.

 

The thing to remember here is that while people spend enormous amounts of time and money getting monitors to exactly match film, it's quite possible to just hand over a DV tape, have them burn it out, then watch it and decide - "yeah, whatever, that looks reasonable, it's watchable..." - it doesn't absolutely have to be perfect if all you want is a picture. Low-end stuff is done like that all the time.

 

As to lab differences, yes the labs are much more inconsistent than the electronics are capable of being!

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hello Daniel,

 

I'm dumping the scanner approach because of the slow scan times. I'm looking into using using a Kodak DCS SLR macro lensed into the gate of my Mitchell with a see through pressure plate. The SLR can capture at a rate of 1.7 4K images per second. I probably won't get that kind of speed in the actual application but it is still the best compromise of price to speed. I can hide some of the CCD's Bayer pattern in the breakdown from 4K to 2K. That should hide the bad pixels, too.

 

Catch ya' around,

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, after we go to such lengths to match digit and film, we dump the film in a bath full of chemicals and hope for the best.

Oh please!

 

[rant]

I'm tempted to abandon my usually polite and restrained approach when I read such displays of unmitigated ignorance and prejudice. Maybe used lightly or flippantly in this instance, but none the less it's an attitude we can all do without.

 

What is your issue with "a bath full of chemicals" that is different from "a tangle of wires"?

 

Far too many people just plug one electronic box into another and "hope for the best" for this to be a fair or reasonable comment.

 

Chemistry is every bit as sophisticated a science as electronics, and while digital techniques have given a remarkable degree of control to the user, the chemistry of film emulsions and processing is considerably more refined than your terms give them credit for.

 

[/rant]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hey Phil,

What do you have in mind for the bad pixels? I know that camera companies select the CCDs to avoid dead pixel clustering. As I have been told, they also have some method for "filling in the holes" with some kind of neutral data. But that's only heresay.

 

Hey Dominic,

 

I agree with you whole heartedly on your rant. 20 or so years ago, I ran the 16mm B&W reversal lab for the Athletic Dept. here at the University of Mississippi (ahhhh, the good ole days!). I did everything by the book and still had a hell of a time getting good results. It is both a real art and a science. Anyone with a trained eye can see that film is still the superior asthetic. My dad can't tell me when something on TV was made in film or video, but he can tell me which image looks crappier. He always picks video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

> What do you have in mind for the bad pixels?

 

There's various software around that'll replace the dud area with an average of its surroundings, which may be less objectionable than the dead-pixel artifact. Assuming your data is 8-bit, there's a plugin for Virtualdub called DeLogo, which is designed to remove buned-in text but works just as well with duff pixels. Probably not ideal since VirtualDub is really designed for standard def, 8-bit AVI video data, not huge sequences of film-res stills, but the theory is sound. You could certainly generate a Photoshop action to do it (use cloner).

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Oh please!

 

[rant]

I'm tempted to abandon my usually polite and restrained approach when I read such displays of unmitigated ignorance and prejudice. Maybe used lightly or flippantly in this instance, but none the less it's an attitude we can all do without.

 

What is your issue with "a bath full of chemicals" that is different from "a tangle of wires"?

 

Far too many people just plug one electronic box into another and "hope for the best" for this to be a fair or reasonable comment.

 

Chemistry is every bit as sophisticated a science as electronics, and while digital techniques have given a remarkable degree of control to the user, the chemistry of film emulsions and processing is considerably more refined than your terms give them credit for.

 

[/rant]

 

 

Well as I mentioned in the post you quoted that bit from, every single time (without fail) we have had a client say "The print doesn't look like what we graded", we have just sent the same data to the same film recorder and printed to the same stock and re-developed. Then its fine. So my point is that the differences provided to the final look by the lab are significantly more variable than those differences provided in a well configured grading system. Some how people seem more concerned with the issues of matching digits to film and less about the differences that are inherent in the optical system. As you say, an issue of ignorance perhaps.

 

As for comparing a bath full of chemicals with a load of wires, well I would point out that wires don't deplete and don't change their effects. Data goes in one end and comes out the other exactly the same. Unlike a short film transfer (like a trailer) that is stuck on the end of an over-exposed film as it plows through the (depleting) chemicals (that last bit of info was the excuse given by a lab here as to why one of our trailers looked so odd!)

 

But you are right about people connecting various boxes end-to-end without knowing what they are doing. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, afterall. Good job they are not chemists - mixing chemicals together without knowing what they are doing. BOOM!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

Truelight is certainly capable of calibrating a display more accurately than the print to print consistency of the labs, but I understand that most labs held differences to a single printer point or two.

 

What's the margin of error? I don't think anyone's blaming the labs for this situation, it must be absolutely hellish trying to keep a bubbling vat of goop consistent when the variables go as far down as how much light hit the film during exposure!

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Chemistry is every bit as sophisticated a science as electronics, and while digital techniques have given a remarkable degree of control to the user, the chemistry of film emulsions and processing is considerably more refined than your terms give them credit for.

 

[/rant]

 

A brief introduction to controlling a photographic process:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en.../h241/h2401.pdf

 

As a "newly minted" electronics engineer working at Kodak in the early 1970's, one of my first training assignments was to manage the film processing group, responsible for running the ECN, ECP and CRI-1 processes used by the motion-picture product development teams. I was responsible for sensitometric and chemical control of the three processes, as well as physical quality. Despite my initial fears as a person who muddled through the mandated chemistry courses electrical engineers had to take in college, I did quite well in this one year assignment. I learned that a well-designed film process was best left alone, as constantly "tweeking" the chemistry with cuts and additions was more likely to throw the process out of control than just watching the process trends and keeping the replenisher flows adjusted to maintain good control. Keeping the film clean and scratch free was just a matter of good routine maintenance, and running scratch tests before any customer work. It helped that I had a gruff senior processing technician (John Gailey) as my mentor, as his experienced "hands on" approach taught me more than any processing manual or book on photographic chemistry.

 

Good process control is capable of maintaining excellent consistency in the color and density of the film images --- "Been there, done that...".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hello John,

 

I guess we have more in common than I thought. We both have had time in the lab. Obviously, yours more than mine. I found that contiuous but slight adjustments got me closer and closer to good finish than trying to restart the whole system, just as you mentioned. When I stripped the system for a rebuild, it took the whole season just to get it back up to the quality I got when it was junky and mucky. Balancing the system was the trick to it. This was only B&W reversal. A color machine must be 4 times the effort.

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

Forum Sponsors

Visual Products

Film Gears

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

CINELEASE

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...