Jump to content

DI Resolution


Rob Webster

Recommended Posts

I'm currently gearing toward the camp that favours extensive planning before production to achieve the aesthetic look of a film through cinematography, lighting, costume, make-up and, perhaps most important, production design rather than electronic tinkering in post. In my mind a directors idea for how a film is coloured, lit and dressed should be set in stone in exactly the same way as when one decides which focal length of lens to use, how to block a scene and whether to use a handheld shot or a Steadicam; a director doesn't feel the need to change any of those image components.

 

DI's supposed benefits of contrast enhancement, desaturation, power windows etc. can be done on the soundstage or on location through careful choice of stock, lighting, costume, make-up and production design. Refusing to establish a look until post-production on a big budget film is, to my mind, bizarre if one claims to be a director with a 'vision', a vision that can't be established or locked before production when you have the necessary money and equipment to accomplish it. The photochemical path appears as more of a collaborative effort during production because you are all working to the same goal and aesthetic.

 

Dare I say that whatever look can be dreamt up in a DI suite can be accomplished photochemically provided you have the money, equipment and determination to do so on set and in the lab. Directors, DP's, gaffers, grips, production designers, make-up artists, costume designers and actors all got along fine before the DI to acheive a desired look. Ease does not equal professionalism.

 

Perhaps smaller budget films need a DI more so than bigger budget films because of a possible lacking for the appropriate tools to achieve a particular look during production.

 

In closing, very few films demand a DI to look good if someone is a pro, and a bad film does not benefit from post-production tinkering (I really like that word) if it has a bad story, bad acting and/or bad direction. I also like optical Super35 blowups; bring the grain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't think Speilberg quite dug up Kaminski. He was only in his 30s when he shot that if memory serves.

 

I was talking about the whole lab process, not the DP. I'm not sure you could actually get a B&W release run done at all today.

 

I actually didn't know for certain, that "Schindler's List's" DP was Kaminski.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I'm currently gearing toward the camp that favours extensive planning before production to achieve the aesthetic look of a film through cinematography, lighting, costume, make-up and, perhaps most important, production design rather than electronic tinkering in post. In my mind a directors idea for how a film is coloured, lit and dressed should be set in stone in exactly the same way as when one decides which focal length of lens to use, how to block a scene and whether to use a handheld shot or a Steadicam; a director doesn't feel the need to change any of those image components.

 

DI's supposed benefits of contrast enhancement, desaturation, power windows etc. can be done on the soundstage or on location through careful choice of stock, lighting, costume, make-up and production design. Refusing to establish a look until post-production on a big budget film is, to my mind, bizarre if one claims to be a director with a 'vision', a vision that can't be established or locked before production when you have the necessary money and equipment to accomplish it. The photochemical path appears as more of a collaborative effort during production because you are all working to the same goal and aesthetic.

 

Dare I say that whatever look can be dreamt up in a DI suite can be accomplished photochemically provided you have the money, equipment and determination to do so on set and in the lab. Directors, DP's, gaffers, grips, production designers, make-up artists, costume designers and actors all got along fine before the DI to acheive a desired look. Ease does not equal professionalism.

 

Perhaps smaller budget films need a DI more so than bigger budget films because of a possible lacking for the appropriate tools to achieve a particular look during production.

 

In closing, very few films demand a DI to look good if someone is a pro, and a bad film does not benefit from post-production tinkering (I really like that word) if it has a bad story, bad acting and/or bad direction. I also like optical Super35 blowups; bring the grain.

 

Originally, the DI process was simply intended to make it possible to shoot scenes that would otherwise have been too expensive or impractical. Apart from the obvious things like "Jurassic Park", in more mundane applications it greatly simplified the removal of TV antennas and other anachronisms from Victorian streetscapes; power lines from Edwardian houses and so on. Orignally the notion was to only DI the parts that actually needed it, and then cut the negative in the traditional manner for a traditional photochemical release. For a long time it was cheaper to do most special effects the non-digital way using traditional trick photography.

 

However unless great care was taken, the DI parts tended to clash with the non-DI parts, and as DI got cheaper, it was easier for lazy-arse producers to post produce the entire film digitally, basically lowering everything to the same 2K level of non-excellence. Boring-but-safe is the current paradigm in the whole cinematic process, not just scripts and choice of actors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Hi Karl,

 

Without doubt you can however the cost is significantly higher than printing on Color stock, the producer will not be your friend.

 

Stephen

Can you actually get real Black and White prints made at all now? Considering the complexity of the chemical processing required I can't imagine anybody not having converted all their existing monochrome chains permanently to colour by now.

 

Or can you get chromagenic B&W print stock that will work in a colour processor?

Edited by Keith Walters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Dare I say that whatever look can be dreamt up in a DI suite can be accomplished photochemically provided you have the money, equipment and determination to do so on set and in the lab.

 

Ah, but which is the more cost effective choice? Scene by scene, that's what we try to figure out. It's a business after all.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Considering the complexity of the chemical processing required I can't imagine anybody not having converted all their existing monochrome chains permanently to colour by now.

 

You can process B&W in any machine that can do color. It requires a different set of chemicals, but mechanically, it's just tanks and a drive mechanism. For a while, labs were doing B&W once a week, or once a month. Perhaps it happens as a special order now, with the associated setup cost billed to the B&W customer.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
You can process B&W in any machine that can do color. It requires a different set of chemicals, but mechanically, it's just tanks and a drive mechanism. For a while, labs were doing B&W once a week, or once a month. Perhaps it happens as a special order now, with the associated setup cost billed to the B&W customer.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

Hi,

 

It's special order in Switzerland, we have to pre-book color as well! With cleanng color takes a little over an hour.

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
You can process B&W in any machine that can do color. It requires a different set of chemicals, but mechanically, it's just tanks and a drive mechanism.

-- J.S.

I know that, but there's more to a processing chain than just tanks of chemicals. The floor under the main processing chains at Atlab/Deluxe Sydney looks like a part of a WWII atomic bomb plant!

You need a lot of extra plumbing to add the replenishing chemicals, remove the waste products, recover the silver and so on. And you also have to duplicate and maintain separate systems for B&W and colour.

Because of the highly corrosive nature of a lot of the substances used, I just don't think too many places would bother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
You'd have to almost "dig them up" like Spielburg must've with "Schindler's List" to make a through-and-through B&W movie today.

Wasn't there one scene where a little girl in a Concentration Camp was wearing a red coat?

That is, the coat appeared in colour, but everything else in the film was in monochrome.

If that was the case, the whole release print would have to have been on colour print stock anyway.

How badly did that affect the image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
If that was the case, the whole release print would have to have been on colour print stock anyway.

How badly did that affect the image.

 

What many labs recommend, there is a risk of a tint to the print depending on the skill of the lab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

A neat way to do this -- granted, not available in the real world -- would be to make conventional B&W prints, and then print in just the red on that scene only using the Technicolor imbibition process.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that, but there's more to a processing chain than just tanks of chemicals. The floor under the main processing chains at Atlab/Deluxe Sydney looks like a part of a WWII atomic bomb plant!

You need a lot of extra plumbing to add the replenishing chemicals, remove the waste products, recover the silver and so on. And you also have to duplicate and maintain separate systems for B&W and colour.

Because of the highly corrosive nature of a lot of the substances used, I just don't think too many places would bother.

 

You're really way out of your league here, Keith.

 

Having run a B&W line briefly, it's a lot SIMPLER than color, especially to keep in control. There's no bleach step (though a lot of labs sometimes do a water wash or acid stop between developer and fixer), the temperature and speed can be varied however the lab wants as long as they make their AIM contrast density.

 

All you'd need to do to run B&W would be to clean out the developer and bleach tanks (the bleach tank very thoroughly, with either toilet-bowl cleaner or REAL laundry bleach), and you could theoretically just dump color fixer and replace with B&W without any issues.

 

There's no color crossover issues, retained silver issues (if you don't retain silver you're in trouble), nor as lengthy a process, though you have to be more critical in washing the fixer out for archival prints and negatives.

 

 

I think you can even run B&W print stock under a red or yellow safelight, similar to B&W paper in a darkroom.

 

 

You'd probably want to buy some extra 25- or 50 U.S gal tanks for each different chemical (instead of re-using color chemical tanks and risking contamination) and some new lines, but after that you're off to the races.

 

 

The REAL problem with running a B&W line is to get enough FILM in to keep you in control with a huge developer tank (50+ U.S. gal/40+ Imp. gal./190+L) and only typically poorly-shot student films coming in.

 

 

It's difficult to estimate your actual replenishment when the stock isn't exposed to something near an average of 18% grey (lots of over- / underexposed film will throw off your replen. rates).

 

 

 

I guess one other issue, at least one I notice with modern B&W movies that I hadn't seen since the end of the '40s is more noticeable turbulation issues (irregular throbbing grain densities from frame to frame caused by variations in the activity of the developer tank from the top, where the most exhaustion is to the bottom where the replen. pumps are usually pumping in fresh replenishment.)

Edited by Karl Borowski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't there one scene where a little girl in a Concentration Camp was wearing a red coat?

That is, the coat appeared in colour, but everything else in the film was in monochrome.

If that was the case, the whole release print would have to have been on colour print stock anyway.

How badly did that affect the image.

 

One could splice the color insert into the B/W reel.

 

While at WRS, I had to splice color inserts and end titles into the B/W 'Operation Bikini'.

& there were all those different language main titles for Campus Crusade for Christ's Jesus movie.

Yeah, those M/Ts were in color, but it's an example of splicing inserts into a lot of release prints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One could splice the color insert into the B/W reel.

 

While at WRS, I had to splice color inserts and end titles into the B/W 'Operation Bikini'.

& there were all those different language main titles for Campus Crusade for Christ's Jesus movie.

Yeah, those M/Ts were in color, but it's an example of splicing inserts into a lot of release prints.

 

Yeah, the same was done with "Schindler," during the initial run; they had to hand-splice the color inserts, probably DI'd or hand-tinted on the negative, printed onto color stock into the otherwise true B&W movie.

 

Due to issues with splices breaking, later prints were struck on all color stock, with all the problems associated therein. I saw a print of some Pearl Harbor attack newsreel footage when in Hawai'i six years ago, and there was a definite color cast to what I assume was (potentially faded) 35mm color stock.

 

DIs are actually a big improvement here, or at least should be with a further grasp on color control.

 

 

But, as I constantly reminded every time I visit a theatre with 35mm projection, color balance goes through a real roller coster ride with any film between the IN and RP steps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
You're really way out of your league here, Keith.

Sigh. You then go on to describe all the complications and pitfalls involved in switching between B&W colour. Which was precisely my point: That in a modern, largely automated facility, it would require quite a lot more plumbing and equipment to allow on-demand switching to B&W development.

 

I think you'll find that most labs aren't interested. They'd much rather be churning out endless colour prints of Teen-centric tripe 24/7 than caring for anybody's Monochrome labour of love.

 

Maybe in a small "boutique" lab where they fill the tanks with plastic buckets, but I don't know if I'd want to trust my already expensive B&W negative to such a place.

Edited by Keith Walters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
One could splice the color insert into the B/W reel.

One could, but there would be a risk of a noticeable colour tint appearing in the monochrome background.

Or alternatively, if you could guarantee that that would not happen, well then why not do the whole print on colour stock?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you'll find that most labs aren't interested. They'd much rather be churning out endless colour prints of Teen-centric tripe 24/7 than caring for anybody's Monochrome labour of love.

 

Maybe in a small "boutique" lab where they fill the tanks with plastic buckets, but I don't know if I'd want to trust my already expensive B&W negative to such a place.

 

Huh. Maybe Technicolor and Deluxe have something better, but a simple plastic hose and a plastic, floating lid tank (or a tank under nitrogen if you want to get fancy) are all that is really needed.

 

The larger your throughput/% utilization, the LESS high-tech you need to get because the chemistry is being turned over so fast that exposure to oxygen (and the resulting oxidization) is negligible.

 

 

You are right about one thing, though, most labs aren't interested in converting machines from one process to another. They just buy additional machines. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Due to issues with splices breaking, later prints were struck on all color stock, with all the problems associated therein.

Funny. Steven Spielberg and no one around to understand there are polyester base stocks that can be welded. Very durable joints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know in partiicular what you are talking about, Simon, if it's splicing negatives or prints on polyester stock, but the reason they had to splice the *prints* on "Schindler," was due to them having to add in color material. Without making the whole print on color stock, the only other alternative to splicing in the color footage by hand would be to hand-tint each frame by hand, instead of just the negative or the master positive.

 

While ultrasonic splices on polyester stock are quite good, they aren't perfect either, better than tape splices, but I know projectionists that splice them out or put a tape splice over them, just to be safe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Funny. Steven Spielberg and no one around to understand there are polyester base stocks that can be welded. Very durable joints.

 

I don't think the b&w print stocks used back then were Estar. Kodak didn't start making their b&w print stock on Estar until 1999 I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my understanding most of the larger labs retain B&W processing machines as they are required extensively for developing optical soundtrack negatives.

 

Can you actually get real Black and White prints made at all now? Considering the complexity of the chemical processing required I can't imagine anybody not having converted all their existing monochrome chains permanently to colour by now.

 

Or can you get chromagenic B&W print stock that will work in a colour processor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the b&w print stocks used back then were Estar. Kodak didn't start making their b&w print stock on Estar until 1999 I believe.

 

I know "Independence Day" (1996) was one of the last big acetate releases. So the mid-1990s were a transition point from acetate to estar, just as the early 2000s (in the U.S. at least) were a transition from high-magenta (and silver) to cyan-only optical sound-tracks. I was surprised that acetate print stock was completely discontinued; I thought there were still theatres that were getting it.

 

It is probable that "Schindler's List" was entirely acetate, at least in the initial theatrical run. I'm not sure the earliest that estar print stocks became available. . .

 

 

As far as I know, there is no "chromogenic" B&W print stock for the ECP process, although I assume that technology would be possible.

 

 

While sound track negatives are on B&W stock, I am pretty sure it utilizes a different, higher contrast, developer than the D-96? developer for standard-contrast B&W camera negatives. I'd imagine the scenario labs without dedicated B&W lines would use, would involve using a dedicated sound-track developer processor, swapping out developers and perhaps adjusting the transport speed.

 

There'd be fewer issues switching just the B&W developer than going from color to B&W and the danger of having the silver getting bleached out by residue from the ECN process.

 

 

Of course, in order to get a lab to do a B&W run that doesn't normally process, you'd have to give them a lot of film, not a few thousand feet for a student film. B&W labs are getting harder and harder to come by, just like labs that do optical/contact prints instead of DIs (I know Rob says that they get a lot of out-lab work at Cinelab that is B&W coming from other labs' customers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
From my understanding most of the larger labs retain B&W processing machines as they are required extensively for developing optical soundtrack negatives.

Tha was indeed the case until about 5-6 years ago, when (as far as I know anyway), all release prints switched to a cyan sound track and most B&W chains were converted for more lucrative full-time colour operaton. This necessitated changing the incandescent exciter lamps in projectors to RED LEDs, often with their own power supply, but this was usually a pretty low-cost modification. In fact did a couple myself with ordinary off-the-shelf RED LEDs and surplus cellphone chargers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Film Gears

CINELEASE

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...