Please Help. Super 16 transfer

May 1, 2005

Hey.

I recently directed a feature on Super 16. To make a long story short, we had one light dailies done, edited off those, and are now doing a Best Light using our EDL to pull selects. From there, we'll be doing a tape to tape to complete our final lighting/color arcs. This copy will then be our master until we cut our negative to make prints.

The problem I'm running into is this. My cinematographer is on another shoot while I supervise the best light. When we move into the final tape to tape, he'll be there, but for now, he's not. Which isn't a big deal. I know the exact look we're looking to achieve and can convey that easily. What I can't always convey is the technical terms colorists understand. Which, to me shouldn't be a problem if I just tell them the mood, how it should look etc. They should be able to interpret it. The problem is...the colorist apparently isn't. We started a few days ago using a Davinci Ursua 8:88 I believe...And as the colorist finishes laying down each shot, it's super crisp, the colors look fine, but the image has either a grey look, a blue look or a orangish/tan look depending on the time of day etc....which it shouldn't have. I tell the colorist that "the scene's looking a bit overcast or blue or tan" etc etc...and he tells me it isn't. So I think maybe I'm imagining it. So tonight I was finally able to get some of the new footage on to my editors avid...and it's ridiculous. It IS grey. It IS overcast. Blue. Whatever. Which worries me. I mean, We're leaving full range in every image we lay down (no crushed blacks etc) so that when we do tape to tape with my cinematographer...we can do whatever we want...but will we be able to fix this? It's almost as if whatever light is used to light the scene, the colorist has tossed a filter on. Not only that, they almost seem underlit. I've noticed that a lot of walls that are suppose to be white...come out almost tan. I'm wondering if he's doing this to avoid video noise he knows his machine produces? But would that throw off the color of the light? I've already spent 30 hours with him already, so we can't afford to re do these selects. So, I'm hoping it can be altered on tape to tape. What I need help with what should I say when I go in on Monday and it looks blue again etc...what should I tell him. Is there "colorist speak" that I need to use? I'm going to show him the footage we laid down on digibeta to show him it's blue...but I'm sure he'll deny it. So I need help on what to say. It's just confusing because the skin tones are right, the colors are generally right...but it's the light, the look of the scene that's off. Anf again, I know it wasn't lit this way. Why would he do this? Is he being lazy because he doesn't want to tweak? Or was I just not pushing hard enough when I say the image has a blue tint? But then, what do I say to tell him to lose the blue tint...as apparently..."That image looks blue" isn't enough.

If anyone can help...it would be appreciated and aleviate my worry.

Thanks.

Edited May 1, 2005 by Jeff 2

David Mullen ASC · May 1, 2005

Talk to the colorist's supervisor or the head of the post house and tell them that the colorist did not do what you instructed. You paid for it afterall.

However, if the scopes in the telecine bay told him that his blacks were black and his whites and grays were neutral, then perhaps your monitors are incorrect. But I would definitely take it back to the post house and sit down with them and show them what's wrong with the transfer.

May 1, 2005

David,

Thanks for the reply. I know it's hard to gauge without seeing, but does this sound like something that can fixed in tape to tape...or something that needs to be redone from the negative? Depending on the severity of course.

And could this be a midtone problem? The colorist injecting too much of one? Would that alter the light of a scene?

David Cox · May 1, 2005

As you say, without looking at your footage and knowing what you will do your tape-to-tape grade on, its difficult to give an absolute answer. But if the blacks aren't crushed and the whites aren't burnt out, and any colour cast that affects the mid-tones is not really strong, then I would suggest that it shouldn't pose a problem.

You could get a section of the footage that worries you into a test tape-to-tape grade session and just double check that you can get the look you want from what you have. If not, definitely tell your post house you want it done again. The point of a best light is to create a transfer that allows grading later down the chain. If you can't do that, then they have not served you correctly.

David Cox

Baraka Post Production

www.baraka.co.uk

Dominic Case · May 2, 2005

If you are doing a "full range" or "flat" grade on your first transfer so that you can do whatever you actually want on the tape-to-tape, then the colorist is right to leave the scenes alone as they are. He is doing his best to transfer everythng you have on the neg, so that your decisions aren't restricted at a later stage.

One consequence of keeping all the neg information is that the frst transfer will look flat - that's so you still have all the highlight AND the shadow AND the colour information there to play with later on. I guess that's what you are seeing when you say it looks "underlit".

However, if you aren't confident that the colorist is giving you what you need, he has clearly not done his job (which is to satisfy you). You should talk to his supervisor or a manager, and explain your concerns, and not rest until THEY have given you a satisfactory answer. They can see the footage, and the settings on the machine: no-one on this list can.