Brandt Ryan

Per aapo lettinen's suggestion, I'm posting his DM response below. I'm sure it will be helpful to others in the future who might be new to the post-production process. Again, I appreciate everyone's responses to my questions. I was a bit intimidated coming in here, but have found it to be friendly, inviting, and of course, extremely helpful. I thought I might be reaching with the idea that someone might be able to analyze the footage to see what the DP was shooting for (npi), with the limited information I have nearly 20 years after the fact. DM response from aapo lettinen:

Perhaps this local (Indianapolis) production company was trying to shoo me away, thinking I had ran out and "run and gunned" the movie with 10 locations, and imagining the mess, just wasn't interested. At any rate (ha) - what is considered a normal day rate?

Thank you!

Thank you! DM inbound.

I did not get an official quote - here are some things he said though: He mentioned a grade and a "correction" though I made it clear I wasn't looking for a new "look" i.e., grade. He told me I'd probably need both, perhaps that's why the quote is so high. The terms get confusing to me as they are used inconsistently over the course of my research (lol, I just noticed I used the term "grade" in my original post, and meant correction). All this is to say that perhaps he was running under assumption the footage was indeed a "mess" and that I was looking for both a correction and a grade. If he saw that the footage was nearly there as captured in camera, as others have said, it might require just a half day in the studio which falls in line with other numbers mentioned in this thread (1-3K).

Thank you all for your replies - indeed, I need to shop around. IMO, after researching color grading for a few months now - the footage I have is likely to be considered in excellent shape - it's certainly not a mess. I'm confident about this for a few reasons: I remember we devoted a whole day to setting up the camera and running it through a battery of various tests - a lot of time tweaking settings for white balance - but also testing lenses, etc. The other reason: the entire short is essentially one long scene, in the same room - no change in time of day - so the lighting is for the most part consistent throughout (on a soundstage and so completely controlled the entire time) - I'm not trying to "match" a look from one room, e.g., to some scene in another location. In short, I would think a colorist would likely be relieved after the first glance, at least in terms of how much time it would take, and what needed to be done. I'm going to reply individually to other responses - thanks again - I'm grateful!

Strange title - this is my first post on these forums. I have a dilemma. I made a short film in 2003 and had a "pro" crew, starting with the DP. I was the director - but looking back, he basically produced the film. He made it happen, despite my nearly non-existent budget (10K). I didn't know what I was doing. He pulled in a lot of favors to get a lighting crew in, sound crew, set designer - everyone basically. He even procured a studio space in which to shoot it (it all takes place in a hotel room, which we built. I think the 10K I had paid for the set building, the rental of the camera (XL1s) and the Zeiss prime lenses. The most expensive thing was the insurance to cover the lenses. In short, a lot of people worked for either nothing, or next to nothing. After principal photography, a friend of a friend threw together a rough cut and I made some DVD's (once again, not knowing what I was doing), one of which I sent out to the DP. All I remember is him being furious, that no color grade had been done - basically that it still had a lot of "post" work to be done. I thought post-production meant editing/cutting the film together (again, I didn't know what I was doing.) Shortly after this, the DP unexpectedly passed away. I couldn't afford to have a color grade done by a professional (I'm being told now, that for a 20 min short, it will be a five-figure number) - or any of the post work and shelved the project - thinking selfishly that I had made the DVD and that was that. I still don't have money for all of the post-work, but I can certainly do a better job now on the post production than I did then. It's going to be a long process - it's a labor of love at this point. My question: I remember the DP liked the look of a film at the time Sex and Lucia, and proposed that kind of "look". I'm pretty sure he was referring not only to the look of the film, but camera placement/setups, etc. - as there are a lot of scenes with lovers in a hotel room, and so similar to our film. I'm wondering if a cinematographer could look at some of the footage and be able to see what sort of "look" he was going for by looking at the actual footage. He was a pro, and so tried to get it all right in camera - not with the attitude of "fixing it in post". That's part of the reason I thought it wouldn't need a color correction/grade - but after that phone call, clearly it needed something, perhaps simply tweaking black/white levels. I want to somehow stay true to what he wanted - to make things right - not just the color, but finishing the project properly - I owe it to him, and to everyone else that worked on the film. Apologies for the long post - I think my only chance is reaching out to the community to get pointed in the right direction.