FLOWER a flyin' monkey films production

[Rodney V. Smith]

from wikipedia:

Masks, Mattes, Power Windows
The evolution of digital color correction tools advanced to the point where the colorist could use geometric shapes (like mattes or masks in photo software such as Photoshop) to isolate color adjustments to specific areas of an image. Called Power Windows by da Vinci Systems, these tools can highlight a wall in the background and color only that wall — leaving the rest of the frame alone — or color everything but that wall. Subsequent color correctors (typically software-based) have the ability to use spline-based shapes for even greater control over isolating color adjustments. Color keying is also used for isolating areas to adjust.
Inside and outside of area-based isolations, digital filtration can be applied to soften, sharpen or mimic the effects of traditional glass photographic filters in nearly infinite degrees.

Motion Tracking
When trying to isolate a color adjustment on a moving subject, the colorist traditionally would have needed to manually move the mask to follow the subject. In its most simple form, motion tracking automates this time-consuming process using algorithms to evaluate the motion of a group of pixels. These techniques are generally derived from match moving techniques used in special effects and compositing work.

Also here's a good description:

Color correction, (also known as color grading) is much more than fixing problems with a film or video. It's a great way to enhance the style, look & mood of a film or video, and can make an already well shot & good looking film look even better.

Motion tracking can be combined with other techniques to add light to a subject's eyes or achieve the final look wanted for a scene, this not only saves time on the set (and money) but, when done in close collaboration with the cinematographer, allows greater flexibility in adjusting the overall feeling of the scene.

 

[cinealma]

Sometimes I don't understand all the CC that goes on around here?

I think the simple answer to this in the digital world is: because you can. :happy:



John G.

 

[Sprocketboy]

You are "spot on" with the use of CC. Your raw footage should already be pretty close to the final product. CC is the same as color timing a film at a lab, except you don't have to inhale chemicals. There should be only minor adjustments to the colors, gamma and brightness from shot to shot. I will not work longer than 4 hours on any session. After that, everything begins to look a little more red to me. I have to take a 1 to 2 hour break before going in again.

 

[Nitsuj]

Sometimes less IS more....

Ah yes I have found minimal adjustments in color correction looks much better. That being said, the minimal CC looks much better than the video straight out of the camera as well. I think it is good to get a good feel while shooting however it is even better to highlight that feel in post if you can. And it is a must if you are trying to get away from that reality show video look and more into a cinematic look. Least imo that is.

 

[Rodney V. Smith]

For me its simple: it give the film the look that I want. I have more latitude especially with well lit scenes on how to give the scenes the look and the true feel of what i see in my head. Gods help us all...

 

[Tom Marshall]

CC is the same as color timing a film at a lab, except you don't have to inhale chemicals.

Well, you have the option of inhaling chemicals if you're doing CC... :happy:

 

[ZazaCast]

I think the simple answer to this in the digital world is: because you can. :happy:



John G.

...and just because you can, doesn't mean you have to. :happy:

You have to admit it's pretty funny when someone goes out and spends 5K on an awesome camera and then spends days...or weeks playing with that beautiful image. Same with digital audio, as it gets more pure (higher sample rates), everyone starts looking for the good old analog tube gear to run it through to get that tape sound that was so good in the first place!

I still prefer to track drums to a 2" analog machine, then dump that into the DAW for the overdubs and edit. Analog still sounds best... IMO.

... I miss my albums....:violin:

 

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Analog is great but listening to movies in 5.1 and beyond with a good DTS track kicks major ass on the right system.

I still have a few albums though.

Grading is a whole different ball of wax. I am learning to shoot as close to the look that I want though, but I do find that grading can give you that punch you sometimes need. Difference is, I'm doing it on a <1K camera.

 

[ZazaCast]

Analog is great but listening to movies in 5.1 and beyond with a good DTS track kicks major ass on the right system.

Yes this is true, but you can still record all that kick ass audio in an analog format first...and it will sound even better!

I still have a few albums though.

But do you still have anything to play them on? :happy:

Grading is a whole different ball of wax. I am learning to shoot as close to the look that I want though, but I do find that grading can give you that punch you sometimes need. Difference is, I'm doing it on a <1K camera.

Excellent... like I said, less is more...you shouldn't have to beat on it to get it to look good IMO.

 

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

But do you still have anything to play them on? :happy:

Wouldn't be much good to me if I didn't.

Now if I can just find the box I packed them in.

MAH

 

[Tom Marshall]

Same with digital audio, as it gets more pure (higher sample rates), everyone starts looking for the good old analog tube gear to run it through to get that tape sound that was so good in the first place!

True. I've got some digital gear in my guitar rack - namely, the Pod Pro and the RME FF800 audio interface, but one of the things that I like most is my old Tube Driver - adds all kinds of warmth and sweet distortion... :beer:

 

[Marlon Ladd]

Well, I think the thing about cc is that it gives the filmmaker so many options. Most, if not all major studio films are color corrected and with todayz advances in technology and all the different programs, there are so many different looks you can go for. Probably the reason why it takes as long as it does is because you first have to first decide on a look. I went through 3 or 4 looks and how I decided was I applied those looks to several different shots that were lit differently and picked the one that looked the best and was the most consistent throughout. Another thing that takes time is matching scenes or shots with the cc. Since every shot is not lit the same, you have to tweak, tweak, tweak. Then, depending on your cpu, rendering can take awhile.

In the end, my cc is too far off from my original footage, but it no doubt makes it pop.

 

[Rodney V. Smith]

Well, I think the thing about cc is that it gives the filmmaker so many options. Most, if not all major studio films are color corrected and with todayz advances in technology and all the different programs, there are so many different looks you can go for. Probably the reason why it takes as long as it does is because you first have to first decide on a look. I went through 3 or 4 looks and how I decided was I applied those looks to several different shots that were lit differently and picked the one that looked the best and was the most consistent throughout. Another thing that takes time is matching scenes or shots with the cc. Since every shot is not lit the same, you have to tweak, tweak, tweak. Then, depending on your cpu, rendering can take awhile.

In the end, my cc is too far off from my original footage, but it no doubt makes it pop.

Well said. It was what I was too busy to articulate. It's a process just FINDING the right look. I;ve decided on so many looks it's not funny, but I'm definitely gettign closer. Oh yeah: reshoots and pickups are almost always never quite lit the same, so those clips in the scene don't even match properly until you do the right color correction.

Being out of beer doesn't help either. I need to do a beer run before I get back to it today...

 

[ZazaCast]

I totally 'get it'... It's like a woman in a shoe store, SO many choices. I just wonder sometimes if technology helps or hurts? (does this CC make my butt look big?)

I mean I still watch "A Touch of Evil"... or "Ben-Hur"... and think, WOW this still looks great!

 

[Rodney V. Smith]

Believe me: technology totally helps. And this CC does make my ass look big. or maybe it's the beer...

 

[ZazaCast]

Believe me: technology totally helps. And this CC does make my ass look big. or maybe it's the beer...

We'll see....:happy:

 

[Nitsuj]

Well on this short I did I gave it a look with lighting. In post I applied a very small change to certain scenes that didn't match the others as well. For instance the house interior was actually the interior of 2 different houses but I cut them in to look like the same place. So I had to change the look to match it in some way. But the majority of the changes were just exposure and maybe added a little warmth. Other than that the whole thing just has some saturation lowered a hair and in the curve values I upped the contrast very slightly along with the midtones. I added a diffuse to the intro (which is not in the dvxversion) to give a sense of looking into the past. Basically everything else is in camera. I think of it as a tool to help make your vision possible. Of course you need all the tools you can get with only an $80 budget so everything helps.

 

[Marlon Ladd]

(does this CC make my butt look big?)

I mean I still watch "A Touch of Evil"... or "Ben-Hur"... and think, WOW this still looks great!

LOL! That CC line is hilarious! :happy: You're quite witty, Zaza.

I think you're right about "Ben-Hur." Still looks good, but I think the cc on "300" set a new standard.

 

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

I love Ben-Hur myself. I prefer the look of Gladiator though. 300 took it too far.
While it works for that movie I think the gritty look of Gladiator can work for many films.

Ben-Hur has pretty colours and that makes their costumes look unused. CC can actually make a red cloak look gritty without adding the dirt.

To each their own though.

 

[Rodney V. Smith]

Ben-Hur has pretty colours and that makes their costumes look unused. CC can actually make a red cloak look gritty without adding the dirt.

.

i think you just nailed it on the head: the one thing that's always bothered me about the old classics is that the costumes always LOOKED like costumes. Some grading on those would have done wonders indeed...