At what point do you hand your film to the colourist?

iamWZA

iamWZA

Active member
Apologies if this is in the wrong section - I didn't know where it would fit best. Further apologies for this noob question. I'm wondering when and in what format you give your film to the colourist to work their magic. Do you send them the raw files unedited? Or do you cut your film and hand it over? I feel very stupid for having to ask this but for some reason it's not obvious to me.

Thanks for nay help you can give me!
 
Generally the project is provided to the colorist once it's been "picture-locked." Color/Telecine work (with a professional) can be very expensive, and it's usually one of the final steps in finishing.

As far as how to provide materials to a colorist, they'll likely want an EDL of your finished sequence, or perhaps an XML file. Usually what I do is media-manage the project to create a new project with only the "Master" sequence present. Then I create an EDL/XML from that sequence, and provide both that file and the media-managed original clips to the colorist. This way they don't have a mountain of clips, since only the clips used in the edit will be provided.

Back in the days of film, when we'd get commercials shot on 35mm film, things were a bit more complicated. And expensive. :D
 
Yeah, I've seen some mentions on here of a workflow that involved processing the footage first (denoising, basic color correction pass, ect.) but that seems like a lot of work for little gain. Considering the average 10:1 shooting ratio (my last major project was more like 40:1), it seems that doing anything to the footage before you edit it is a huge waste of time. So, like Stephen said, I'd wait until the final edit was locked and then process only the footage that's actually being used.
 
You'll also want to be in touch with your colorist about exactly which kind of EDL/XML file they need, depending on what system they're using.
 
Any modern NLE should have an option to export an EDL (edit decision list) file, in some format or other. Basically, this is a file (pretty much a text file) that a colorist can import into his system, and when imported, it essentially "re-creates" your master sequence on his system.

An XML file is similar, but a bit more sophisticated, and may or may not be supported depending on the system your colorist is using.
 
I see. So would I edit the film as normal, and then export the file as an EDL, effectively sending the colourist an ungraded copy of the final film?
 
Exactly.

Sometimes what I'll do is also send the colorist some sample stills/grabs from the project, which I've color-corrected in Photoshop, just to give him an idea of what I'm looking for. But I also always give them the freedom to show me what they think the footage "wants," and we go from there.
 
Not exactly how an EDL works guys.

An EDL (Edit Decision List) refers to the "edit" and also the Source Files.

ie. The colorist needs the source files as well as the EDL.

A copy of the offline edit as a reference is helpful as well. (especially if it has burnt in TC.)
 
Shooter said:
Not exactly how an EDL works guys.

An EDL (Edit Decision List) refers to the "edit" and also the Source Files.

ie. The colorist needs the source files as well as the EDL.

A copy of the offline edit as a reference is helpful as well. (especially if it has burnt in TC.)
Click to expand...

If you'll re-read my original response, I did note that the original clips will need to be provided with the EDL.
 
adkimery said:
It's also common just to send a high res export of the locked edit along with an EDL to the colorist.
Click to expand...

Yep...it happens...but less than ideal workflow though.

Disadvantages are ...no clip handles, transitions and graphics get cc/graded... and also working with copression of a 2nd generation export and subsequent generations for final oututs.
 
Transitions can add a wrinkle to grading but GFX/text can easily be excluded prior to export and dropped back in later. Potential damage of additional compression depends on the situation. If you are editing in ProRes in FCP, for example, and select Export->Make QT Movie you are not adding an additional step of compression (QT basically takes all the clips in the timeline and stitches them together into one continues video file so no compression happens) or if you have DSLR footage that's exported out as ProRes HQ the damage was done as soon as the sensor data was saved as H.264.

Both methods have their uses though I do prefer when I can hand off a media managed/decomposed project as it does afford more flexibility if need be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top