Education on film grading

[Dominic Case]

(Timing referring to print, grading referring to DI/Telecine)

Well if it suits you to use the terms that way, go ahead.

 

But the term "grading" has been around in most parts of the world for a lot longer than telecines have been in existence, let alone DIs.

 

I still don't exactly know what is meant by grading; Dominic Case's explanation probably isn't how the term is derived.

As in "road grading". No, probably not.

 

Grading is exactly the same as timing, in a different variety of English. In photochemical terms, which is what this discussion is about, it is the process of deciding what printer light settings are required to obtain the desired colour in each shot in a film.

 

Typically that is done using a Colormaster or Hazeltine machine - basically they are like a telecine, in which the negative is scanned or imaged onto a CCD and the positive image is displayed on a monitor. The machine is calibrated to match the light valve controls on a printer, so that you can simulate the results of printing at any combination of red, green and blue exposures. There are just three controls on the machine - one for red, one for green, one for blue. Lights range from 1 to 50 for each colour, in 0.025 logE increments.

 

There are some short-cut ways of refining the grade after the first print is made - such as viewing the print over a light bench and laying colour filters over each shot to estimate how much to further correct it.

 

These grading machines or colour analysers, (sorry, color analyzers :P ) were developed at the same time as additive colour printers. In the early days of black and white printing, the lab technician could estimate the printer light simply by looking at the negative - a skill that black and white stills darkroom people still have today, if there are any left! But it's too hard to judge colour corrections that way. So, in the early days of colour, a "two frame pilot" was made up, consisting of a couple of frames from the trims of every shot in the film. THis would be printed on a subtractive printer several times, with a range of different filter packs, and then the best result for each shot would be selected. In order to achieve scene-to-scene filter changes on a subractive (filter pack) colour printer, a light band consisting of a filter pack for each shot then had to be made up - so a reel with 100 shots in it would have a light band with 100 filter packs - each with a combination of yellow, magenta and cyan cc filters.

 

Karl, that probably answers your question about whether subtractive colour correction is still used. It is unbelievably time-consuming making up those light bands, then having to correct them if the print wasn't to the customer's liking. SOme older optical efects printers that are obviously used just for indivitual shpots may still use filter packs, but who used optical effects printers these days?

[Paul Bruening]

Hello Dominic,

 

It's always a pleasure to read your responses. You've mentioned the names for some analyzers. Could you make a recommendation to James about what models to look out for and which to avoid? He'll also need some recommendations on the paper tape encoder or is that built into the analyzer? If I recall correctly, he may have a printer and need a match to his paper tape reader or even buy a matching reader that will work on his printer.

 

I appreciate your question about our movie making souls. You're right, of course.

 

I have supported James' direction for some time and PM'd him supportively many times. At the same time, he's only one man and this is a whopping challenge for any man to take on.

[James Steven Beverly]

Isn't there a way to set up a PC to do what a Hazeltine use to do? Seems to me there's gotta be some sorta computer controls to replace paper tape. :blink:

[Dominic Case]

Basically, a Colormaster IS a PC set up to do what a Hazeltine used to do. Plus a CCD camera to read the negative. And a calibrated monitor.

 

The trick is in adjusting the system to simulate the colour space of print film, and then setting up controls that will alter the colour of the image in exactly the same way as the light vanes of a printer.

 

Easy to say, not so easy to do - although the basic technique of the Colormaster was developed in the late 1980s. (I should add as a disclaimer that I was somewhat involved in it at the time, though no longer). So it's not exactly rocket surgery especially when so much more work has been done on digital colour science.

 

The paper tape thing isn't the crucial thing - it has survivied in many labs as long as it has because it WORKS - and because every additive printer ever built by anyone had compatible paper tape readers. Many labs now network the printers so that the grading data goes straight to the printer: but for smaller labs that doesn't give them anything that paper tape doesn't already do: why fix what ain't broke?

 

If you have a printer, you probably have a tape reader with it. It's a close call whether you would find it easier to track down an old paper tape punch, or write some code that would fire the data straight from your PC into the printer. That's when you've converted your PC into a colour grading system.

[James Steven Beverly]

You know it might, I actually haven't fiddled with it sense I brought it back from California. I remember the guy I bought it from said he had modified it somewhat. I'll have to give him a call and find out exactly what he did now that I know a little bit more about the process and might be able to understand the terminology he used. Here's a shot of the printer if that's any clue:

 

 

 

I'll try and mess with it in the next few weeks and see what's there. My brother who is a contractor is going to help me fix my studio roof so I may be able to get everything sealed up in there and go back to setting up the lab very soon.

[James Steven Beverly]

Here's another view:

 

[Dominic Case]

This is a strange-lloking beast. Never seen anyfink like it in me life! I think what you have might once have been an optical printer, but has now been modified to be a step optical printer. Raw print stock goes in the mag, of course, and negative is laced to be in contact with it as it goes through a step-printing gate, a frame at a time. On the left, in your second photo, is the light source - an additive ight head, with red, green & blue dichroics, and red green & blue trim controls to set the light vanes. However, I don't think there is a tape reader, so to make scene-to-scene corrections you'd need to stop the printer at each scene change (in a final cut neg) and change the trims manually.

 

Normally a printer like this wouldn't be used for making prints from timed (there i go . . .I mean graded :P!) ) negatives - it's a lot slower than a continuous printer as well. More likely for duplication, or simple effects.

 

Hard to be sure if I've got it exactly right, without more detailed photos - but that's my guess. Have a look inside the light source, and have a look inside the camera body.

[James Steven Beverly]

Dominic, I've heard of optical step printers, could this be one of those? I know from what the guy told me it was used on the original Star Trek series which with all the optical effects they used, would make sense for the machine. From what I read in your book and on the net, I'll need a continuous contact printer to make prints with sound tracks from the answer print. This one could be perfect for making dailies and editing prints though, huh? If it is a step optical printer, this thing COULD be invaluable for creating titles and opticals if it can be put back to an optical printer. I'll try and get some numbers and more information on it so we can see what it actually is and/or was! I'm excited, this could be very cool! I know the guy was trying to adapt a bi-pack film mag to it. I still have the mag. If it can be adapted, one could process matte painting shots couldn't one? Which would add a whole new set of dimensions to my FX capabilities. B)

[James Steven Beverly]

Here's some shots of the Bi-pack:

 

 

 

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Dominic, I've heard of optical step printers, could this be one of those? I know from what the guy told me it was used on the original Star Trek series which with all the optical effects they used, would make sense for the machine.

 

Ratherthan an optical step printer, it's a CONTACT step printer.

 

In the optical printer they would be photographing step printed I/Ps and mattes.

 

This would have been used for step printing those I/Ps and mattes.

 

It could be used for some effects printing where none of the images have to repositioned.

 

It could be used for dailies. If you ever shoot 3-strip, it'll be perfect for the dailies.

[Dominic Case]

Ratherthan an optical step printer, it's a CONTACT step printer.

Oops! Did I say optical printer. Brain fade. Yes, Leo's right, of course irt's a contact step printer.

 

If you get it going it will produce impeccably sharp and steady prints (or IPs), as each frame is exposed with neg and stock stationary and probably pin-registered. A continuous contact printer has the neg and stock running, not stopping, and lcoked together on the sprocket that transports them. So a continuous printer would be a much faster machine, ideal for rushes and release prints, but not quite accurate enough for making IPs for optical effects, epecially compositing work involving mattes - which is what your machine is for. Could also be used for making preservation tri-seps.

[K Borowski]

Let me resurrect this thread one final time to say that, in all likelihood, you are NOT going to be able to pick up color timing coupled with density correction to the point where you are at the same level as even a moderately-skilled professional timer with less than two years practice. It can be THAT HARD. You can get close with a little practice, but the real kicker is keeping colors matching scene to scene. It is very difficult to do this, especially when you are trying to match colors when what you have shot doesn't actually match (i.e. one overcast day's master shot and a close up you shot when the clouds were thinner the next day).

 

My recommendation is to get a video analyzer to avoid wasting a tonne of film stock, two years of your life, a whole lot of chemistry, and a whole lot of your sanity. It's good to learn how to use clip tests, but, after the initial setup time to calibrate a monitor to a print stock's characteristics, a good video analyzer will pay for itself.

 

I have no experience with this in motion pictures, but I figure you can probably snag an older model for a couple thousand dollars, or jerry-rig a non-optimal model to work for even less.

 

~KB

[James Steven Beverly]

Karl, that seems to be sound advice. If i an find one for a coupe of grand, it'll be well worth the investment since I've spent the cash on the other equipment and it'd be a waste to screw up all that film trying to figure out how to grade when there's a machine that can do it for me ESPECIALLY when I have trouble matching socks sometimes!!! :D Maybe I'll get lucky and find one before we begin production in the fall. I can judge the over all look of the scene but on something like color matching I'd tend to trust a machine more so than my own eye. B)

[GeorgeSelinsky]

The whole point of doing this this way is that once the support facilities are in place, we can shoot several films. I don't have to shop scripts around, HOPE someone can see my vision, try and live with the micro management of a studio or producer. I green-lite my films, I control their look, I make the profits or live with the losses.

 

As one who has played with the idea of processing movie film for a feature and been a one man film crew (shot-lit-directed-pa'ed-edited-sound-etc), I am warning you that you are about to set onto a perilous path.

 

I don't know how many films you have directed, but I think that your idea of building a laboratory is going to take away from the main point of what you should be, a filmmaker first and foremost.

 

Personally I sympathize because I've always detested the overhead of making a film period, and wished that there would be various ways of getting around that. I've had crazy ideas like developing my own dailies, using a hand cranked DeVry 35mm camera (though I am still tempted to try the Parvo one of these days - in honor of Eisenstein!), and so on and so forth. It's also flattering to the ego to think of yourself as some Renaissance man filmmaker who can do it all and buck the system. In the end however you are humbled when you realize that there's a limit to what you can accomplish.

 

In the film world there are many craftsmen who concentrate on their job and specialize at it. This includes actors, cinematographers, editors, musicians, mixers, and yes, most certainly the lab personnel. Granted, while you can get a DP for free sometimes, it's nearly impossible to get a lab to do a freebie - though exceptions happen occasionally. The main reason is the lab has a fairly high overhead, which will explain why a number have gone out of business recently (New York's A-1 just shut down this last week, Lab Link shut down a few months earlier).

 

I think the choice is simple. If you want to shoot film, the lab is simply a part of the budget. Negotiate, call around and find the best price you can get. If you're just bringing in 10,000 ft, you're not going to get a big break, but you'll do better than a film student who's just bringing in two 100' spools of 16mm Plus X reversal. If you can't pull it off, get in front of a mirror, say to yourself "I can't afford to shoot film and I thank God for the existence of digital formats", and then love the one you're with. Yes, it's a bruise to the ego for the director with refined taste in images not to see the grain of film on the screen, but what's more important - that or the content of the story?

 

If you want to make films, you need to make them any way you can. That means video if necessary.

 

If on the other hand you are a man with a love of film technology and have an entrepreneurial spirit, go ahead and create your own laboratory. But do it like a real business. Work for a real lab first and get some experience. Then incorporate, get investors to put some dollars in, and be prepared to manage a real business. You probably won't have time at that point to shoot your own film, not until you have the business started and the lab is running on a regular basis. But you will have a professional laboratory.

 

To set up a lab that will produce professional results and make your own film at the same time is spreading yourself WAY too thin. Trust me, you're much better off spending all that time and mental energy rewriting the script, rehearsing the actors, and meeting people at film festivals than learning to make sinex strips in your basement. It's enough of a challenge just to put a film together in an of itself.

 

Yes, it sucks that it costs so much to get quality on the screen. It sucks that so much dreck is shot on glorious 35mm while more meaningful. artistic, and socially significant projects have to use Sonycams. Is it fair? No it's not. But look how 16mm became such a lively format - people who couldn't afford 35mm could now make a movie using a TV news camera and short ends from news agencies. Digital video has made it even easier. There's a $300 HD video camera today from Aiptek that can produce video of a higher quality than a Kodak Brownie 8mm could 50 years ago. It keeps getting easier.

 

Ultimately nobody gives a damn what you shot it on. If you shot it on 35mm and it sucks, they won't watch it. If you shot it on DV and it's funny, they'll remember it. Ask yourself if you take your film to the theater and someone else who shot something on a $2000 Sony HD camera gets further with their film than you with yours that was self-printed in your basement, how would you feel?

 

All said out of love and respect...

 

- G.

 

P.S. Replenishment is no joke! Just read the specs in the Kodak process manuals to get an idea. Also, have you thought of where you're going to pour all that highly toxic chemistry? What about silver recovery? Don't want the Ghostbusters EPA guy knocking on your door while you're in the middle of processing, lol

[James Steven Beverly]

OK, I appreciate the concern but I AM shooting 35mm anamorphic, processing, printing, editing on film in-house and WILL make this work. We're gonna be shooting closer to 50K of film on this first feature which is actually a VERY low shooting ratio of about 6 to 1 on a 90 minute film, THAT'S a concern but I'm working on finding a way to get more filmstock so we'll see what happens. Lab costs should work out to be about 3 to 5 cents a foot for processing IF I were to buy chemicals, BUT I already have the chemicals so basically it's labor and filmstock. IF you can find a lab who will process the stuff for that, let me know, I'll use them. Also, I DON'T plan to don a mask, jump on a horse and play the Lone Ranger here, I have gathered a team of people who will be working with me so I, personally may never even process a single frame. My equipment will but It most likely will be a small team of chemical engineering grad students from the University of Texas at El Paso School of Mines doing most of the actual work and they're use to working with somewhat hazardous chemicals.

 

As for myself, I have produced, written and directed over a dozen theatrical productions for various organizations including the US Army Office of Equal Opportunity and El Paso's Mission Trail Association as well as music videos, live multi-camera events and theatrical presentations, film shorts, educational and instructional videos and worked as a grip and lightng designer on a few features and films for the Military, so I'm relitively sure I'll have a handle on the oporational aspect of my productions....and if I don't, Mel Kekuawa, my DoP and friend and veteran of some 30+ features and TV shows as well as a multitude of commercials should be able to lend a hand.

 

If you think what you shoot on is un-important I would recommend you read Richard Boddinton's thread on his adventures at AFM, it will NO DOUBT change your thinking on this issue. This was never a question of ego, this is a question of practicality, there are few investors in my area and absolutely NO support facilities for film production of any kind and PRECIOUS FEW for ANY kind of video production let alone high end video production. In fact as far as I know,and I know a lotta people, I'm the only guy in town with a 35mm movie camera package let alone 2 of 'em.

 

Now as for shooting video, a true HD camera say a Sony HDW-F900 , used, runs about what? 25 to 50K (and originally about 5,6 years ago 100K), the lens maybe 10K, an HD recorder (for editing so you don't ave to use the camera as a deck) maybe 35K, a computer with software capable of editing true HD (4:4:4) maybe 10 to 15K THEN a transfer to film maybe 30 to 50K, if I rent all this crap, it's maybe 6K (just a guess based on a quote I got for 15 hundred a day a few years ago on a small HD camera package) a week over say a 3 month period if you include editing, but then of course the film out stays the same. After all that, I have a product no one will buy because it was shot on video no matter that it's the best (or second best because the HD equipment is now obsolete) video has to offer.... so......where exactly would I be saving money? Especially considering EVERYTHING I own, which at this point is just about everything I need to shoot, process and print a film, wouldn't cover the cost of the film transfer alone and you NEED a film transfer because the ONLY way an indy film maker is gonna see a dime on his feature is in foreign sales and foreign distributers are gonna want prints that they can manipulate for their particular territories. Now you MIGHT get a straight to video deal but you're never gonna see any of that money and of course you COULD distribute it on the web but you better have a team to get in those chat rooms and an IT guy who knows how to keep you name in the top percentages of Google if you ever want to see any of that money, so I'm sorry if my sense of business isn't up to your standards but we all have our shortcomings :D .

 

Oh BTW, the one good thing about living in El Paso, and accept for my family, there isn't much, is that labor is cheap, dirt cheap, as is pretty much everything else so overhead is about as low as you're gonna get and that $300 dollar "HD" camera isn't an HD camera, it's an HDV camera, that's a consumer format. I already also have a SD JVC GY-500 that has 3 1/2in chips in it and is used in many television station news rooms around the country. It puts out over 850 lines of resolution and is an absolute dream to operate but the picture isn't even CLOSE to the kind of quality I want for a feature film so I'm gonna stick with 35mm.... you know IF that's OK with you?

[James Steven Beverly]

Oh and one more thing, I don't have a basement, I do however have a 6000 square foot studio wit a scene shop, editing room, lab room, 2 studio floors, make up and costume room, conference room and what is soon to become a 35mm screening room complete with a projection booth. Just FYI. B)

Edited February 4, 2008 by James Steven Beverly

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Hey James, good for you - honestly - and I really hope it works for you. Maybe you're just a better man than I am. Personally, I would never risk putting my own film into developing soup (unless we're talking still film) and doing anything that grand. I hope that after your 16 hour days you're going to have reliable grad students to process your dailies so you can sleep soundly and prepare for the next shoot, lol.

 

I've shot on a 6:1 ratio before. It's VERY tight, but it's doable. I'm about to do it again on a short film I'm shooting this weekend.

 

I am also a bigtime film addict. I will shoot film as long as I can afford to do it. Right now I'm scratching my head thinking how I'm going to raise funding for my next project, a good deal of which I want to shoot on B&W 35mm widescreen.

 

But in the end if I can't raise the dough to shoot it that way I'm simply going to grab an HD camera, I certainly won't start a lab in my basement because I've been there and done that already :) Besides, with 35mm the economy goes down when you process your own. The place where you really save the most is Super 8, since labs charge a lot for that given the much lower volume.

 

Btw, the Aiptek is 720 30P HD. It looks better than Super 8 that's for sure, and that was my only point.

 

- G.

[James Steven Beverly]

I doubt whether I'm a better man than you, probably just more stubborn :D HOPEFULLY, I can find some students with a sense of dedication and responsibility but regardless, I'll work it out one way or another. I've got a couple of friends who I can also ask if things go south. I plan on shooting and processing some second unit stuff to start with so IF it gets screwed up while we're figuring this whole thing out we're pretty much just out the stock and chemistry again, HOPEFULLY, that won't happen too much.

 

Yeah, I'm not HAPPY about shooting 6 to 1 but I'll live with it if I have to. I plan to take a cue from Hong Kong cinema and do a lot of in-camera editing, cut-aways and reaction shots to cover any mistakes and taking the scene from the point where the actor's screw up with an angle change rather than re-shoot the whole thing over again. That should help to save quite a bit of stock, that and not waiting to call action when the camera's rolling. I still want to budget for more film though if I can afford it.

 

Wouldn't actually be cheaper to shoot color and process to B&W or was that what you were planning to do? When you say 35mm widescreen, do you mean you're shooting with a widescreen gate or you're framing for widescreen, just curious, I was planning at some point to pick up a European widescreen gate (1.66) for my Kinor 35C Rotovision so I was just curious. What's you short about?

 

So, you used to own a film processor, what kind? Yeah, 8mm isn't really an option, I don't even want to use 16mm. It's hard to sell. I would consider processing for other people down the road but the machines I have are all for 35mm. As for the economy going out the window, IF it turns out that it's just as inexpensive to ship film to LA, then I'll consider it, but I doubt if it's gonna be. :)

 

As for the Aiptek, it's still video and I'll lay you money, it's got a 4:2:0 pull-down regardless see "better" is a subjective term, 8mm is still film and film shoots at a molecular level. I mean what's right for you, may not be right for me. I plan on selling what I make so I really have to think in terms of what is going to make that product sellable. 35mm is sellable. I'll make it work. B)

Edited February 5, 2008 by James Steven Beverly

[Dominic Case]

It most likely will be a small team of chemical engineering grad students from the University of Texas at El Paso School of Mines doing most of the actual work

well ..... good luck ..... :unsure:

 

When you process your first batch of negative, and make a print, and you see (for example) streaks and curtains/weave all over the image, what will your mining engineers do?

 

Seriously, don't underestimate the difficulty of what you are undertaking. Sure, it's not rocket surgery, mostly it is 19th century chemistry, but there are a lot of things that require very fine tuning. I strongly recommend you find someone who has some experience in a processing lab if you are planning to process 50,000 feet of negative.

 

it'd be a waste to screw up all that film trying to figure out how to grade when there's a machine that can do it for me

As regards colour video analysers, they won't "do it for you". You still need to see each shot on a monitor and adjust it to look like the previous one. That is a matter of your colour judgement. All the machine does is provide you with a knob to turn that alters the colour the required amount with each click. And if you are planning to pick one up for a couple of grand, it's not necessarily going to do that very accurately.

 

None of the above is a reason not to attempt what you are doing. I'm merely providing you with a few reasons to feel extra-specially triumphant when you finally succeed. It's useful to know what hurdles you have overcome.

[James Steven Beverly]

well ..... good luck ..... :unsure:

 

When you process your first batch of negative, and make a print, and you see (for example) streaks and curtains/weave all over the image, what will your mining engineers do?

 

Email you and ask what the Hell we did wrong? :D

 

Seriously, don't underestimate the difficulty of what you are undertaking. Sure, it's not rocket surgery, mostly it is 19th century chemistry, but there are a lot of things that require very fine tuning. I strongly recommend you find someone who has some experience in a processing lab if you are planning to process 50,000 feet of negative.

 

Oh believe me, I DON"T, which is why I plan on shooting stuff that if it does get screwed up isn't irreplaceable. I FULLY intent to find some one with some experience if at all possible. Unfortunately, as far as I know, there IS no one here with any experience so What I may have to do is bring someone in from out of town for a week or too to kinda supervise then have them consult from time to time if we run into problems, I ALSO plan on making the processing tasks as simple as possible by limiting the special processing needs to a one stop push on the night stuff. HOPEFULLY this will keep problems to a minimum.

 

 

As regards colour video analyzers, they won't "do it for you". You still need to see each shot on a monitor and adjust it to look like the previous one. That is a matter of your colour judgment. All the machine does is provide you with a knob to turn that alters the colour the required amount with each click. And if you are planning to pick one up for a couple of grand, it's not necessarily going to do that very accurately.

 

Well that kinda sucks. I guess we'll have to figure out how to get around that somehow, maybe have whatever one we get re-calibrated if possible or find a way to compensate for any discrepancies. Let me ask you a question, would a densitometer help with grading?

 

None of the above is a reason not to attempt what you are doing. I'm merely providing you with a few reasons to feel extra-specially triumphant when you finally succeed. It's useful to know what hurdles you have overcome.

 

I agree completely and appreciate you giving me the heads up on these potential problems. I'd much rather know about them so I can plan for them that have them unexpectedly come up out of the blue to bite me in the ass. :D Thanks Amigo for the vote of confidence! B)

Edited February 6, 2008 by James Steven Beverly

[Dominic Case]

would a densitometer help with grading?

 

If you shoot an 18% grey card at the head of each setup, it's possible to read the density of that piece of negative and adjust the printer lights accordingly to give a consistently correct print - provided the shots behind the grey card are exposed the same way.

 

But without the grey card, the densitometer won't be much help.

 

However, a densitometer will help you manage your negative process: you'll need it to run tests to check that your chemistry, temperature, time, turbulation and so on are all working together to develop the film correctly.

 

Bear in mind that the comments that I'm making are all based on many years' experience in a commercial lab. If anything goes even slightly wrong, the hell that has to be paid can often be greater than the extent of the fault. By contrast, if you are your own customer, you can make a sensible judgement about what is or is not acceptable.