shooting uncorrected

jon w · May 19, 2005

i know that this topic has been discused many times, but i would like to understand technically.

lets say you shoot uncorrected tungsten film outside... you get your blue image, you decide that you want to correct it in post because your film will stay on tape/dvd.

now i understand that this is somewhat feasable, but not optimal, and that you will have an OVEREXPOSED BLUE LAYER in your film....

can someone talk about certain layeres being over exposed? how it affects the highlights to shadows, the rest of the image / colors?

i appologize if this is a stupid questions, i just like to fully understand why things happen instead of just knowing that they do happen.

David Mullen ASC · May 19, 2005

It's not like one whole layer is overexposed, only that colors in that layer will be denser than normal (and redder colors will be thinner than normal) and we're not talking about a lot of blue overexposure if shooting without the 85B filter anyway (since that filter only loses 2/3's of a stop of light).

If you consider that a stop correction is something like 6 or so printer light points, it just means that to correct the color, one layer will have somewhat higher printer light numbers while another may be a bit lower than normal. End result should be a normal image on the print, but you may see some slight color shift in the shadows or some slight desaturation in the reds, etc.

It's a little different with video, where I find that shooting a blue image (5500K light on a 3200K balance), especially in a recording format with limited color space and a lot of compression (like 4:1:1 DV) means that there isn't much red information left in the recording to bring back out. It's not like it is "hidden" like it can be on film negative, where there is more information in the other layers that can still be recovered.

jon w · May 19, 2005

Thanks David! :D

Laurent Andrieux · May 19, 2005

I really second the fact that in the exemple you are giving, the shadows will remain bluish. That's how the correction will be seeingable. In the well exposed areas, you can take some blue off but it the shades, it doesn't work so well.

oscar jimenez · May 19, 2005

I never use correction, Im always shooting for Xnsfer. But have always noticed, specially on 45 stock, blacks always have that "blueish" feeling and so do shades in white, lets say a white shirt wrinkle, may that be related to not using correction when shooting? I'd always added it ( 85 ) in Xnsfer

Laurent Andrieux · May 19, 2005

Oscar, the thing is, 45 is a daylight stock, so it shouldn't need any correction outside...

Another point being that outside, the color temperature is always higher in the shadows than in bright light...

oscar jimenez · May 20, 2005

Im sorry I meant 48, beautifoul mistake. Either way, do you think, imagery would be more pleasant and colors render better if the 85 filter is added on cam? Is something that makes me wonder a little, I have worked a lot with south american DP's which are amazing, they always use an 85 on cam when shooting with Tg stock in daylight conditions and have worked with american DP's, usually dont care too much about having 85 filter on for correcting when using Tg stock on daylight situations. Have worked with London DP's who use 85. And then two senior colorists have told me that actually doesnt mean that much correctiing on camera , It remidns me of an arguement with a DP from south america who wanted to shoot color chart for 10 seconds, anyway, I said ( seen it a million times ) colorist will freeze one frame and start working from that frame,

David Mullen ASC · May 20, 2005

Im sorry I meant 48, beautifoul mistake. Either way, do you think, imagery would be more pleasant and colors render better if the 85 filter is added on cam? Is something that makes me wonder a little, I have worked a lot with south american DP's which are amazing, they always use an 85 on cam when shooting with Tg stock in daylight conditions and have worked with american DP's, usually dont care too much about having 85 filter on for correcting when using Tg stock on daylight situations. Have worked with London DP's who use 85. And then two senior colorists have told me that actually doesnt mean that much correctiing on camera , It remidns me of an arguement with a DP from south america who wanted to shoot color chart for 10 seconds, anyway, I said ( seen it a million times ) colorist will freeze one frame and start working from that frame,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously the most accurate color response would be to use the correct filter, but "pleasant" is a subjective concept. The colors in "Barry Lyndon" are pleasant, and that was shot without the 85 filter.

As for shooting at least 10 seconds of the color chart, that's so when it shows up in dailies, it's on-screen long enough to study without having to freeze the tape (or DVD.) Yes, the colorist only needs a few frames to work with.

oscar jimenez · May 20, 2005

Thank you Mr David!! and thank you Laurent!!.

Phil Rhodes · May 20, 2005

Hi,

Ah, here we go with the "accurate" versus "correct" debate, wherein neither camp is anywhere near "realistic" anyway!

Phil

oscar jimenez · May 20, 2005

Maybe is my lousy english, but I didn't get your point Phil. I think there are certain ways to do things, but everyone has his or her own personal booklet on how to do things, for instance: Ive rarely seen a southamerican DP use a incident meter to take his readings, and I have rarely seen an american DP to use a Spot meter to take and decide his readings in the absoulte context of deciding a stop ). Either way, both are correct,depending on your interpretation of things or your personal perception. I guess the best we can do is to learn from the masters two things:

1. the ones that are useful resources, and evolve from them, expand.

2. The ones that we dont want to do or dont want to happen in our job or life.

.