Professional image pipe line(learning resource)

[Anne Bauchens]

Good day forum,

 Is there any resources(e.g.case studies, videos, books, websites...etc) that demonstrate professional image acquisition workflow (from set to dailies), covering practice and equipment used in the process. I found the below so far:

1. Capturing the Shot: Fundamentals, Tools, Techniques, and Workflows for Digital Cinematography
2. The Filmmaker’s Guide to Digital Imaging: for Cinematographers, Digital Imaging Technicians, and Camera Assistants
3. DITs and Data Management for Features, TV and Commercials

[Phil Rhodes]

It changes fairly quickly and is often rather different from job to job, but it's a very broad subject.

I'm not aware of anywhere that details it all but perhaps there should be.

[Anne Bauchens]

13 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said:

It changes fairly quickly and is often rather different from job to job, but it's a very broad subject.

I'm not aware of anywhere that details it all but perhaps there should be.

Its one critical joint in the image chain yet there is no information or best practices available, I think any example would do, just to get the key elements, things like testing/creating  LUTs, Raw monitoring, exposure decisions, DP colorist communication, gear...etc

[Phil Rhodes]

I think the issue is that it's not one critical point, it's about a thousand critical points.

To cover it all in any sort of depth you're talking about a book's worth of stuff, and it'd require regular updating.

Perhaps there's a case for a wiki or something like that.

[Ryan Emanuel]

you should check out http://www.yedlin.net.  Theres definitely multiple levels to image pipeline.  You can do it in a very simple boiler plate fashion with good results or you can do it completely custom.  Depends on how much control you want and how deep you want to go math and coding wise into digital acquisition and display prep. 

[Anne Bauchens]

On 9/13/2019 at 7:56 PM, Ryan Emanuel said:

you should check out http://www.yedlin.net.  Theres definitely multiple levels to image pipeline.  You can do it in a very simple boiler plate fashion with good results or you can do it completely custom.  Depends on how much control you want and how deep you want to go math and coding wise into digital acquisition and display prep. 

Great insights yet its weird how the amount of writing and material in Yeldin's website is huge relative to the benefit you get out of it, he dances around the subject without really giving  you something substantial that you can practically use or build on... Very tormenting 

[Ryan Emanuel]

9 hours ago, Anne Bauchens said:

Great insights yet its weird how the amount of writing and material in Yeldin's website is huge relative to the benefit you get out of it, he dances around the subject without really giving  you something substantial that you can practically use or build on... Very tormenting 

I felt the same way but for him to explain in detail you might need to know linear algebra, multivariable calculus, and some python. Most filmmakers don't, and explaining the how might not be possible without the math.  I think thats why he sticks to the greater concepts and suggests that people try to research on their own.  

[Mei Lewis]

Just re-read most of Yedlin’s site and there’s a lot of good info there not seen elsewhere. 

I’d not heard of an equisolid lens before, and my understanding of rectilinear is a lot clearer now. 

 

I do wish he’d give details of his ‘process’ though. Even if it _is_ too specific and complicated for others to use, keeping it secret is totally at odds with what he seems to be trying to do i.e. remove the magical thinking and mystery often associated. 

[Stuart Brereton]

On 12/22/2019 at 11:48 AM, Mei Lewis said:

I do wish he’d give details of his ‘process’ though. Even if it _is_ too specific and complicated for others to use, keeping it secret is totally at odds with what he seems to be trying to do i.e. remove the magical thinking and mystery often associated. 

I wouldn't get too hung up on Yedlin's actual process. He's evidently a guy who understands the math and science very well, and so he's chosen a complicated route to get the results he wants. By way of contrast, Roger Deakins, for instance, uses the same LUT on every movie, which is apparently nothing more complicated than a straightforward LogC to P3 transform, with a couple of contrast tweaks. They have their individual ways of working, but I wouldn't say that one is more 'filmic' than the other.

[Phil Rhodes]

Am I a bad person for just lighting to the manufacturer's recommended 709 LUT? I find it's a much better use of time to berate the director until there's some actual production design going on.

[Mei Lewis]

I don’t want Yedlin to reveal his process so I can use it. I don’t especially like the film look. I just think his argument would be stronger if he was more open. 

Plus I love maths ?

 

Roger Deakins is very interesting in this regard. There’s an interview he did for Arri related to using one of their cameras for his latest film 1917 where he says he wants the camera to show things as his eye sees them, and he doesn’t like artefacts that occur in the image plane like lens flares. I *guess* that would extend to things like depth of field, noise/grain and a film-like contrast curve which are all unrealistic (compared to the reality our eyes-brains see).

I think what’s going on is, he doesn’t need to make the things he photographs look awesome, because they already look awesome, because of set design, locations, acting and yes lighting etc for which he is directly responsible.

I feel like most of the things I get to shoot could do with some help to look more interesting, and so resort to color correction, certain lens effect, unnatural lighting etc.

 

[Stuart Brereton]

16 hours ago, Mei Lewis said:

I think what’s going on is, he doesn’t need to make the things he photographs look awesome, because they already look awesome, because of set design, locations, acting and yes lighting etc for which he is directly responsible.

While it's true that having great design and locations makes a cinematographer's life a lot easier, I doubt that Steve Yedlin is suffering in that respect.

There's many ways to get a more 'filmic' look out of a digital camera, and complex does not necessarily mean better.

[Mei Lewis]

You're right of course.

I wasn't really thinking of Deakins compared to Yedlin, more Deakins compared to the many younger/newer DPs who would like to emulate him to some degree (myself included).

Whatever Deakins or Yedlin do to make Bond/Star Wars look so good probably needs a lot of re-thinking if applied to an unknown actor standing in a field on a wet day in Wales(!)

 

----

 

I'm really not bothered if something looks 'filmic' or not, I just want it to look good.

Based on his camera choices Deakins doesn't want his work to look filmic either. If he did he would simply shoot film. He wants it to look the way it does when it comes out of an Alexa.

 

[Stuart Brereton]

2 hours ago, Mei Lewis said:

Based on his camera choices Deakins doesn't want his work to look filmic either. If he did he would simply shoot film. He wants it to look the way it does when it comes out of an Alexa.

Deakins is on record as saying he thinks Alexa looks as good as film anyway. Whether 'as good as' means 'the same as' is open to question.

There's a few things that I do as a basic look, whether built into a LUT or done in post. Decrease the general saturation by 10%. Digital video always looks over chroma'd to me. I usually further desaturate the blues and cyan in the sky as well. Then get into those bright video greens and swing them towards yellow a little, then desaturate a touch. I think that looks more like primaries that you would get from film.