4k telecine for D.I

[David Cox]

But in doing a DI you will also cut back on qualit

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I completely disagree that it reduces quality. The whole point of doing it is to increase production value.

 

Besides the biggest quality loss comes from the optical side. All that grain and all those chemicals....

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

I completely disagree that it reduces quality. The whole point of doing it is to increase production value.

 

Besides the biggest quality loss comes from the optical side. All that grain and all those chemicals....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Doing a DI softens the image, atleast I heard anyway. Plus you're limiting the gamut range, and light depth.

 

And when putting it back onto film the blacks don't come out very well.

Edited March 21, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

I wasn't talking about the DI itself, but about the fact that you thought you could grade it yourself and not leave that up to the colorist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, sorry but I disagree that you have to be an expert colourist to make adjustments. A little experience with Photoshop and premiere is enough to make even complex colour alterations.

 

I have done several colour adjustments to my work before. I have turned average snaps into professional looking photographs.

 

With a bit of experience, it's honestly not hard.

 

Oh and before you go using your trademark "you have no idea what you're talking about" statement, I have ALOT of experience in colour work so I do happen to know what I am talking about here.

 

I appreciate that editing photographs is very much different to video, but even with video you can still do a lot of the stuff.

Edited March 21, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[David Cox]

Doing a DI softens the image, atleast I heard anyway. Plus you're limiting the gamut range, and light depth.

 

And when putting it back onto film the blacks don't come out very well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sadly there is a lot of heresay in this industry. The softness added in a 4K DI is much, much smaller than the softness added when doing optical duplicates and bulk prints, not to mention the grain that gets added in those processes. Grain is a very big detractor from image detail and this is often confused with resolution issues. For DI, if you increase the resolution above 4K (even 2K in some instances) all you get is a better copy of the grain - there was never any more detail from the original scene on the film because it is being masked by the film grain.

 

In terms of limiting dynamic range, well mathematically possibly, but not in terms of your intended image. I mentioned in another post that if you look at a "flat scanned" frame, you get a very low contrast frame with high blacks and low highlights. This means that when you account for the grain and noise, you are actually seeing several hundred shades of "black". It takes 9 bits to account for several hundred shades when actually you only want 1 (well none to be precise), because black is black. Thats not loosing low light detail, thats just getting the crap off the black.

 

When you say that blacks don't come out so well from a DI to film, have you done a technical comparison so that you know it is the DI that is the problem? For example, take a film and do the DI, record back to film, go through to the bulk prints and compare that with the original film, optically duplicated and also taken through the bulk print process. That way you will be comparing apples with apples and you should find there are no additional problems brought in by the DI process.

 

The problem is that DI is a creative process where creative decisions are applied. Such decisions are then open to subjective opinion like "I don't like the colour of it" and that sometimes gets altered through chinese whispers as "DI does funny things to the colour".

 

I notice that you are a DOP. Have you had any of your shots go through a DI? If so and you have come to your views of DI from your experiences, then maybe you've had a really bad experience? I have to say that there are a lot of companies out there that think because they've got a mac and they can change the colour of a picture, they can "do DI". Thats where the problems start....

[Paul Bruening]

Holy Cow guys!

 

I didn't expect so many answers so fast. THANKS! I'm using 1900+ wide, 32 bit, true flat CRT to view them on. I'm close enough to 2058 that I don't think the monitor is the pixel issue. When I zoom into the test image I see pixels. That's understandable given the zooming. My concern is: Will I see any of those jagged edges on a forty foot wide, theatrical screen? I can easily ramp up to a SATA board and fill in the twnety or so drives to handle 4K scans. Since I will have to composite 3D rendered effects into about 12 minutes of footage, I'm thinking this may be the way to capture frames to digital. The scan process even with macros is slow. Since I have time to spare and not money, I'm not too concerned. Also, I'm going to try to belly up a Canon XL2 at 24P (3-2 pull down done automatically in cam) using EF aadapter and macro lens to my Mitchel BNC 2 perf with a cut through- light through pressure plate to get around my considerable telcine costs for workprints. Who thinks I'm completely bonkers?

 

Thanks,

Paul Bruening

 

PS there are three Q's here: Pixels, scan resolutions, and telecine.

[Paul Bruening]

Hey again, freindly helpers,

 

Here's my next bomb to drop. I'm thinking of trying VeiwSonic's 4K wide LCD monitor to transfer digital back to film. The macros aren't a problem but putting the solinoid on the shutter of my Mitchell to prevent monitor scan line issues remains to be solved. Has anyone here photographed an LCD to cine frame? How did it look? I like this possiblilty since I can do the scope squeeze digitally. The one true challenge I face is this: Is there software out there that can convert the sound track to a correct, optical waveform image? If so, I could expose the sound track in-house. I'm aware that there may be pop and click issues in a continuous sound exposure. I might be able to overlap the exposure to solve that. What do you think of those questions. Crazy, huh?

 

Two questions: LCD to cine exposure, software converting .wav to optical track or even digital track. :ph34r:

 

Thanks again,

Paul Bruening

[Dominic Case]

.wav to optical track or even digital track.

By "optical track" I presume you mean optical analogue track.

 

Suchsoftware probably does exist. It's probably not too hard to find the basic kit to produce a waveform of some sort - most audio editing programs do just that. But to produce a workable soundtrack you need to build in things that the engineers at Westrex and RCA were doing over half a century ago - like ground noise reduction - which reduces the width of the bias line in quieter passages to minimise the sound of film grain. And to do it without "breathing".

 

Another question is - would you be shooting a sound negative, or are you going the whole hog and making your print? Either way, for the sound to work at all well you need to get your exposures right - that means an understanding of image spread, cancellation, and how cross-mod tests work.

 

For a digital track, you can relax slightly on some of these tiresome technical issues, all you need is to get hold of Dolby or Sony's propietary coding systems. Easy-peasy.

[David Cox]

PS there are three Q's here: Pixels, scan resolutions, and telecine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi Paul,

 

So the three Q's...

 

PIXELS:

When you are looking at your 2048 wide image rescaled to your 1900 montior, you may well see artifacts because to rescale, your monitor would have to take each of the 2048 pixles and scale them to be 0.93 pixels (1900/2048) on your monitor. Clearly, it can't show 0.93 of a pixel so will show 1 for each of 9(ish) pixels in a row, then 2 of the same to "catch up". That might cause oddities in your display which is why I said to make sure you view your image at 1:1 scaling to check quality, even if it doesn't all fit on the screen :)

 

Resolution:

Most big feature films you have seen in the last couple of years will have had a 2K DI which gives them a useable horizontal resolution of around 1900-and-something pixels, so it is doubtful that the resolution you are using will cause you to see pixels. There is a debate about 2K causing some lack of definition in highly detailed shots, such as big wide crowd scenes etc. For this sort of shot, a 4K resolution might be desirable, depending on what you started with. If you shot with anything other than a very well focussed 35mm shot, then 4K is almost certainly over-kill. For your 3D graphics, do a test to see if you really want to render at 4K. Each doubling of resolution quadruples your rendering FOR EACH TEXTURE you apply. So try a couple of frames and see if the wait is worth the difference.

 

Telecine.

Well for your work prints it will work. The question is, are you planning on doing a proper transfer for your final master? If so, you may find it time consuming to find the frames you used. If you transferred your film from a telecine, you would have time-code on tape to use to track your original film frames and this would make your final (high quality) transfer much more efficient.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Well, sorry but I disagree that you have to be an expert colourist to make adjustments. A little experience with Photoshop and premiere is enough to make even complex colour alterations.

 

I have done several colour adjustments to my work before. I have turned average snaps into professional looking photographs.

 

With a bit of experience, it's honestly not hard.

 

Oh and before you go using your trademark "you have no idea what you're talking about" statement, I have ALOT of experience in colour work so I do happen to know what I am talking about here.

 

I appreciate that editing photographs is very much different to video, but even with video you can still do a lot of the stuff.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd like to know WHY you say someone like Landon has no idea what he's talking about when he says he can do it himself.

 

To be honest, I'm not sure if you know what YOU are talking about. Have you ever actually done any colour work before? Because if you had, you would know that it's actually a very simple operation. Aslong as you have had a bit of experience, know what you are doing, then it's no problem at all.

 

We can all say "you don't know what you're talking about", doesn't actually mean anything though. Give reason.

Edited March 22, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Paul Bruening]

Hello Dominic,

 

Those were precisely the answers I needed. Thank you very much. Sorry about being tiresome. I guess there's always someone tugging at your hem for answers. It happens to me locally.

 

Daniel,

 

Color work is really difficult. It takes a trained eye. It took me 5 passes through my last feature in DV and I still catch simple color matching flaws between shots. The eye looses perspective easily when it comes to color. Some folks have a knack for it and some really struggle, like me.

 

Thanks again Dominic, :)

 

Paul Bruening

[Paul Bruening]

Hello David,

 

Many thanks, as well. I know it bugs lab and post people when such home widgetry is proposed. You're a good egg. :D

 

Later guys,

 

Paul Bruening

[Paul Bruening]

Hello David,

 

Many thanks, as well. I know it bugs lab and post people when such home widgetry is proposed. You're a good egg. :D

 

Later guys,

 

Paul Bruening

[John Pytlak RIP]

Hello David,

 

Many thanks, as well. I know it bugs lab and post people when such home widgetry is proposed. You're a good egg. :D

 

Later guys,

 

Paul Bruening

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't really think it "bugs" Kodak, labs, or post houses when film is used in non-standard ways. That's one of the advantages of film. :) It's only that we want to caution about any pitfalls, and remind people that it's usually easier to fit into an established production method if it can meet your artistic vision. I enjoy seeing the creativity of filmmakers, even if it means "bending the rules" sometimes. B)

[Dominic Case]

I know it bugs lab and post people when such home widgetry is proposed.

Not really. What bugs me, at any rate, is when people maintain it's easy. OK, it's not impossible to master the science and to build these things - but it's one thing to understand the simple (basic) principles of something, altogether another thing to master all the second-order details you have to attend to.

[Jonathan Benny]

it's actually a very simple operation. Aslong as you have had a bit of experience, know what you are doing, then it's no problem at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The actual operating of the equipment might be simple, but I see the colorist's work as being kind of like that of the post-production sound-mixer. Sure, there are lots of colorists who can give you a "safe" and "legal" image (and even just achieving that can be in itself a very slippery slope). But the ones I like to find and work with are those who really, really understand what color can do to the story in the same way a DP understands it. That takes a lot of experience and I'd even say some intuition that I'm not sure can be "learned".

 

Just my opinion,

 

Jonathan

Edited March 22, 2005 by Jonathan Benny

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Color work is really difficult.

Well, no offense but, for you perhaps.

 

A little experience, and you can do basic colour alterartions. When I edited my first photograph, I had no colour experience before. I more or less picked it up on the way, and the photo turned out great.

 

Even with video, it's not hard.

 

I suppose some people find it more difficult than others.

 

But the ones I like to find and work with are those who really, really understand what color can do to the story in the same way a DP understands it. That takes a lot of experience

Well I'm ok then, because I am a DP.

Edited March 22, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Michael Most]

Well I'm ok then, because I am a DP.

 

You're also only 16 years old. That hardly qualifies you as a professional DP in the book of anyone with a modicum of common sense, particularly the long time industry professionals you're sometimes talking to here. Although you will clearly flatly reject the notion right now, the fact is that there are many, many, many things in production and in life that can only be learned from experience, which you don't have. I don't expect you to understand that at this point in your life, let alone give it credence, but in the future (perhaps about 10 years from now) you'll understand.

[David Cox]

Well, no offense but, for you perhaps.

 

A little experience, and you can do basic colour alterartions. When I edited my first photograph, I had no colour experience before. I more or less picked it up on the way, and the photo turned out great.

 

Even with video, it's not hard.

 

I suppose some people find it more difficult than others.

Well I'm ok then, because I am a DP.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wow. Arrogant or what!

 

Being able to "do basic colour alterartions" is to grading what pressing autofocus on a camcorder and pressing the red button is to being a DOP.

 

You can make films like that. They'll just not be very pretty.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

You're also only 16 years old. That hardly qualifies you as a professional DP in the book of anyone with a modicum of common sense, particularly the long time industry professionals you're sometimes talking to here. Although you will clearly flatly reject the notion right now, the fact is that there are many, many, many things in production and in life that can only be learned from experience, which you don't have. I don't expect you to understand that at this point in your life, let alone give it credence, but in the future (perhaps about 10 years from now) you'll understand.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No I understand it perfectly. But, believe it or not, I do know something.

 

16? So what! I don't have enough experience so I don't, KNOW, certain things? Thing is, and I've said this many times, I can frame, judge perfectly how much DOF I want, and how I want it to look. And most importantly, how to get it to look like that. That's enough to make Conrad L. Hall quality work, although, do my art skills match Conrad L. Hall? Time will tell.

 

Believe me, I KNOW there are things no textbook will teach you. You have to experience it to know it. But experience doesn't always improve you framing skills.

 

But, just because I'm "in-experienced" doesn't mean I'm a bad DP. Believe it or not, you CAN actually be natural at these things. When I was seven, I made a short dino movie with some black and white camera. Looking back at it, it actually had all the basics of the big films. Because I know how films are made. I know what happens. I had watched many films, and I took it all in.

 

Wow. Arrogant or what!

 

Being able to "do basic colour alterartions" is to grading what pressing autofocus on a camcorder and pressing the red button is to being a DOP.

 

You can make films like that. They'll just not be very pretty.

 

Call me arrogant if you like, difference is, colour grading is NOT hard. On the project I may be making this summer, I will be colour grading the film myself. And believe me, it will be a lot more than just ?basic colour alterations?. Looks like I'll be proving you lot wrong as well. Because believe me, even if the cinematography doesn?t come out great, I 100% guarantee you the colour grading will be perfect.

 

If you find it hard, then I'm forced to say something like "Well, no offence but, for you perhaps."

 

I learnt how to turn amateur pictures into pro looking photographs within a few days. I learnt how to do it as I went along; I never took any course or read any books.

 

I'm not boasting, my point is that it's honestly not difficult. Seriously, a monkey could do basic colour alterations.

Edited March 24, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Here's proof that it is easy:

 

Original Picture:

 

 

Edited picture, which I made within 2 days of using photoshop:

 

 

 

And that was with 2 DAYS of colour grading experience. It's NOT hard.

[Tenolian Bell]

Trust us, we were all 16 once.

 

You are not going to figure everything out in the first 16 years of life.

 

Nor apparently in the first 30 years.

 

One interesting trait of the younger filmmakers is to puff their chests out to prove they know everything, which really shows their insecurity.

 

Older fimmakers don't do any of that at all. As they have nothing to prove nor feel the need to work hard to prove it.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

One interesting trait of the younger filmmakers is to puff their chests out to prove they know everything

It's more rebelling against people who say you know nothing. I'd never have to start saying that I DO know this stuff, but when people start saying you are just 16, starting out, amateur e.t.c. then I sometimes get annoyed and go against it.

 

Older fimmakers don't do any of that at all. As they have nothing to prove nor feel the need to work hard to prove it.

That's because you would expect an older person to be more professional and experienced. People automatically assume, because they are older, they must be experienced and great DP's.

 

I mean if I had changed my age on this to something like 40, (which I wish I had), I'm 100% sure the responses would be different.

 

Just because I'm 16, DOESN'T mean I can't create professional results. Just because every other 16 year old kid out there is just out to get laid, take drugs and listen to punk rock music, doesn't mean that every 16 year old does.

 

Right now, I take my film career more seriously that anything. Even girls aren't of a HUGE interest. (Apart from one, admittedly)

 

Call me a sado, but at the end of the day, this will pay off. THEN, I will worry about other things. OR, I could continue education, get a good job with a stable income, get a family, and live a mediocre life, wow wouldn't that be a great life... Yeh right.

 

 

An example. In this very post, people have already started talking about my age, because I have tried arguing a point.

 

So what if I don't have as much experience as other people, the one thing I do know is that colour grading is generally easy. And it doesn?t take a great deal of experience in it to create good results.

 

You can be as experienced as you like, I won't accept that it's hard. Because believe it or not, I know from experience.

Edited March 24, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[David Cox]

Just because I'm 16, DOESN'T mean I can't create professional results.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Daniel. Just to let you know that "professional" means you get paid for it. It doesn't mean you are any good at it. Have you been paid for it?

 

I noticed your in Kent. If you find your way to London you are welcome to have a look around Baraka.

[David Cox]

Daniel,

 

All of your teenage angst type stuff taken on board.

 

Grading: You think at the moment grading is making everything as bright and colourful as it can be, right?

 

That?s the same as saying being a DOP is about getting the star in the frame without cutting bits off.

 

Like with framing (and directing and cutting), grading can be used to influence the audience?s interpretation of a scene. For example, the shots with distant fluffy clouds could be treated to make the clouds darker and contrasty to provide a threatening and more foreboding element to the scene. Scenes with lower colour content can be used to infer poverty and depravation. Throwing edges out of focus suggests a point of view element. Picking an individual character or feature and grading them independently of the rest of the scene can be used to elevate the importance of that element, however subtle. Just like the subtleties of editing, directing and framing, they all have a part to play in building drama.

 

You are right. Changing colour is easy. Shooting a film is easy. Taking a photograph is easy. Creating something that moves people and changes their tomorrow? That?s harder.

 

Aim higher.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Daniel. Just to let you know that "professional" means you get paid for it. It doesn't mean you are any good at it. Have you been paid for it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No I've never actually been paid for it, although I'm quite sure I could do work that's worth at least a little money.

 

I don't know about being paid for something makes you professional though, a professional is someone who is at the elite level of their job. I mean, just say I created stunning digital images everyday, but, I wasn't selling them, I'd still class myself as a professional.

 

I noticed your in Kent. If you find your way to London you are welcome to have a look around Baraka.

Funny actually, I just looked up Greek Street on multimap.com and it's literally right where I was shooting that TV series thing.

 

Anyway thanks for the offer, be great to come along and meet you, perhaps next time I'm in London or something. (I live literally on the outskirts of London, so I often make trips up there down to central London)

 

Like with framing (and directing and cutting), grading can be used to influence the audience?s interpretation of a scene. For example, the shots with distant fluffy clouds could be treated to make the clouds darker and contrasty to provide a threatening and more foreboding element to the scene. Scenes with lower colour content can be used to infer poverty and depravation. Throwing edges out of focus suggests a point of view element. Picking an individual character or feature and grading them independently of the rest of the scene can be used to elevate the importance of that element, however subtle. Just like the subtleties of editing, directing and framing, they all have a part to play in building drama.

Yeh I know exactly what you mean and I agree. You colour the film to create meaning. Not just to pretty them. (Which I have to admit, is what I've done with all my pictures, including that rifle picture)

 

For instance on one scene I have planned for a film in the summer, there is a scene where a teenager is walking down the streets of London with a pretty grim look on his face. I'm going to give it high contrast, and add quite a lot of blue, just to give it a cold, uncomfortable look. Although, I will add the digital colour based around an optical filter, for the amount of blue I want, just colouring it in post will create massive amounts of digital noise. (I'll use an optical filter, and then touch it up digitally)

 

I looked at your show reel on the Baraka web site. I don't know what the clips looked like before, but the edited clips did look bloody good. "It Won't Do" by Tim De Luxe looked very impressive. (But man is that song annoying, got it stuck in my head now) And also "The World is Not Enough" by Garbage.

 

The colours really corresponded to the mood.

Edited March 25, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith