Scene Files vs Post

Different people will offer different opinions. As a director/cinematographer who worked in film for many years, I always believe in making it look the way I want in the camera - not just scene files, but filters etc. That way I'm in control of the final image.

Because of the availability of excellent post APs, there is a tendency to "fix it in post" these days, but many times it isn't a fix as much as it's someone else manipulating the image - maybe in a way that you hadn't intended. If it looks the way you want it to look out of the camera, you don't open the door for someone else to dick with it.

Of course this means that you need to be very clear in your mind exactly what you want the final image to be - easier said than done. For instance, I tend to underexpose slightly, crunch the master ped, and then shoot with a SoftFX or ProMist to take the HD edge off... Once I do that, I'm locked in and I had better be sure it's really what I want.

Recently I watched the Star Wars films and had my personal inclinations confirmed - the earlier shot (Episode IV) film looks so much better, in my opinion because it's softer, than the crystal sharpness of Episode III. But in this resolution-crazy age, it's a matter of opinion.
 
Most changes in post will in some way degrade the image. Now, if you are working with a colorist that really knows what they're doing, then, yeah, they're going to be able to tweak the image in post to an exact measurement. However, if you're DPing, and you know what you want, why not do it in the camera?

I judge it based on WHO is doing the shooting and editing. A DP that is better at his craft compared to an editor and his respective craft, then the DP should shoot the matrix and filters that he wants. And the opposite is true as well.
 
Not all changes in post will degrade the image - and this is most true if you properly expose and keep detail in the shadows. There is a limit you will very quickly reach for looks in camera. (try and do a good bleach bypass look). My opinion is that the dp's job is to lock in the quality of the image and postproductions job is to finalize the look. Of course sometimes you barely have post or they arent great at what they do in which case you should take care of it more.

With filters - there are things you can do with filters that will be much more organic that you cant do in post. Promist is an example - you can fake it in post - and it will be close - but it will be more organic in camera.
 
Have a look at any film print that wasn't color timed and you'll have a good idea of what can be done in the camera. A film camera I mean. You'll usually find these in the additional scenes on your DVD's. They were shot but didn't make it into the film so they didn't have all the color correction of the scenes in the film.

I tend to go for the fat negative myself good tonal range and all. However you will probably have many people looking at the monitors on set so everyone from the director to craft services will have an opinion on what looks good. Good Luck!

One of the big problems I see with the 500 and Hd cameras in general in the hard cut off in the highlights where they blend to color. You can't be too careful with these in feature or commercial production.

Oh, and your gaffer and makeup people are your best friends in HD, film is far more more forgiving.
 
A Director of Photography (caps intended) is an artist, not a mere technician. Usually, he or she is hired for a specific project because of a style that is consistent in their work. While it's true that the "digital revolution" has changed things, with more producer-types acting in hand-on roles in color correction and editing, the fact remains that the artist that creates the image should be respected.

With film, color correction was usually a matter of compensating for variations in film stock (akin to balancing tires), not altering the intent of the cinematographer and/or director.

The 500 has it's limitations to be sure, but rather than bemoan them, it is helpful to develop a shooting strategy that works with what's available.. No, you're not going to have the latitude or the resolution of the high-end cameras... But, there is a motto I've lived by for years "turn disadvantages into advantages". Don't try to shoot a big screen western with this camera. But, if you develop a work technique that takes advantage of the snappy contrast the the lower resolution (by using filters such as grads, SoftFX etc), you can produce terrific images, especially for personal-story type films - and it's certainly good enough for the majority of first-time features I've seen that are being produced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top