Ultimate color correction

G

Glazarus

Well-known member
Ok, i'm working with Avid Xpress Pro HD and I'm trying to make my footage look like it was shot on film.

Now, how do I light a scene and how do I work with the camera to make my footage well suited for the postproduction? And what should I keep in mind when color correcting?

I'm talking about making my footage look like good old Se7en or some other movie in the same "darkness" style. To make it more clear... how do I make video look like David Finchers "colors and darkness".

Any tips... (this is about Avid, cinematography and lightning, so I didn't know where to put it, but I think that cinematographers knows most about this).
 
one tip i've learned the hard way a couple of times: you can always darken the footage later but you can't add detail that you didn't capture in the first place.
 
How about the lightning? If I want that special Se7en feel, how do I work with the light? I use a standard AG-DVX100E...
Is it better to use more existing lights then to light a scene? Because when I used two RedHeads with a softbox, it looked too much lit up, and no very "thriller".
 
Let me tell you...you've picked one hell of a DP to live up to with tring to get the Se7en feel; Darius Khondji, ASC, certainly one of my favorite with Libatique, Richardson, and a few others. Anyway, if I remember correctly, Se7en had a lot of very contrasty interiors, which suggests one powerful hard key and not too much fill. If you really want the Se7en look, you might want to just pick a scene that's realistic to shoot and try to shoot it ixactly like you see it in the movie. Good luck with it...if you nail it, you'll be following in the footsteps of giants.
Peace,

-Harry
 
Glazarus said:
How about the lightning? If I want that special Se7en feel, how do I work with the light? I use a standard AG-DVX100E...
Is it better to use more existing lights then to light a scene? Because when I used two RedHeads with a softbox, it looked too much lit up, and no very "thriller".
Click to expand...

And remember, you can always darken something in post, but never get back lost detail, so even though it looks lit up, you'll have a little latitude afterwards. It's always best to get as close in camera as possible, but just don't forget to use all the tools available to you.
 
I'm no pro, but it seems to me the overall light level won't matter (too much) as long as the relative light levels are there. Therefore if you want an almost blown out face and a black wall behind them, make sure the light levels are 6-7 stops difference on a video cam who's dynamic range is really only 6-7 stops. That might be hard to get but that would give you ultimate detail range I'd imagine.
 
It depends what you want.

If you want to reduce noise/grain then you're going to want to over-light a bit and darken in post. This will give you a cleaner image.

Se7en had a lot of different lighting styles in certain scenes. What I personally would do to get a similar look is to go ahead and shoot all your interiors with the lights off in the house and the sunlight streaming through the windows. The DVX100 is sensative enough that you won't even need a very bright day to do this as sunlight is so damn powerful and it will give you the high contrast look of the film. Also make sure you crush your blacks by lowering the master pedistal.
 
You may want to do some research to see what techniques Darius K. actually used on that film. There may be something in back issues of American Cinematographer. Even though not all techniques transfer from film to video, it will give you a good start.

If you want a gritty look, you might try underexposing a stop to a stop and a half, and bringing it up in post. This will accentuate noise/grain a bit without having to add it artifically. This was Gordon Willis' technique on The Godfather series: underexpose 1.5 stops, bring it back 1 stop during processing.
 
^
I would say that's a BAD idea in video. All the better video cameras work MUCH better with light. If anything, it's better to over-expose the DVX and HVX and anyone will tell you so as it produces a FAR better image.

The noise that you'll build by underexposing won't make it look "gritty" it'll just make it look like bad video (low light noise just looks bad and very digital). You'll also end up with more artifacts. If you want grain, it's much smarter to add it later. It'll loom much more filmic and you won't damage your footage in the process. More importantly, you can chose how much you want rather than damaging your footage irriversibly.

Gordi Willis did a lot of amazing things with the Godfather films but film is much more forgiving lighting wise than digital (double the lattitude just for starters).
 
Well....I would dare say that underexposing is just as bad as overexposing (or vice versa if you want) on video. That's one place where film certainly shines, in that you can pull or push it in processing and really not lose any details. Video on the other hand (digital and analog) has a finite range of values it can record and anything outside of those are simply gone...lost forever. So, to really embrace video as a cinematographer you must get all of the light levels within the range with an intention (generally speaking) to push the contrast a little bit in post. Such is the nature of the beast I guess...but when it's done right, DAMN it looks good.
Peace,

-Harry
 
Yes, it violates common wisdom. However, I did it and won a number of cinematography awards (in combination with the lighting, of course). It's worth experimenting with. Again, it's not intended to get optimal video, it's intended to get a certain look, and it seems to give roughly the same result in video as in film, though perhaps for different reasons.
 
DV cameras (especially the DVX) still pick up TONS of detail when they're underexposed. Joshua's suggestion is a good one fora gritty look.

When you overexpose and clip the whites, you're never getting that detail back. But you have a LOT more room when you underexpose. Details you never knew were there suddenly appear when you raise the brightness or gamma.
 
I'll only speak for what I've heavily experimented on which is Panasonic's cameras (DVX, HVX). But I'll say that this simply isn't accurate.

Yes, it violates common wisdom. However, I did it and won a number of cinematography awards (in combination with the lighting, of course). It's worth experimenting with. Again, it's not intended to get optimal video, it's intended to get a certain look, and it seems to give roughly the same result in video as in film, though perhaps for different reasons.
Click to expand...

It won awards on FILM. Underexposing can look great in film but not video. The truth is that video noise does not look the same as film grain. This is largly do to the fact that it's not uniform and you'll often get much more noticible amounts of it in your darks which simply looks bad. Underlighting in video often can cause aliasing and more artifacts.

If you want the gritty look of Se7en, it makes much more sense to get a clean image to start with then add grain in post rather than getting noise in camera which doesn't look nearly as good.

DV cameras (especially the DVX) still pick up TONS of detail when they're underexposed. Joshua's suggestion is a good one fora gritty look.

When you overexpose and clip the whites, you're never getting that detail back. But you have a LOT more room when you underexpose. Details you never knew were there suddenly appear when you raise the brightness or gamma.
Click to expand...

First of all, I'm not talking about touching the gamma or gain. You should never do that as it doesn't look good.

And yes, you are right that once something goes to pure which you'll never get it back but it's a fact that in the cine-settings on the panasonic cameras, you get a bit more lattitude then you realize. Turn your zebra strips to 95% and you'll still have detail in almost everything. Perhaps a few minor portions will blow out but I always like having a slight bit of stuff blown out to give it some real conture. I like pure black blacks and a little pure which at points. That's part of what I think of when I say a gritty look.

As I said, I can't speak for working with other cameras but ask people on the DVX100 or HVX200 boards and they'll tell you that you'll get much more detail and less aliasing if you light a bit more instead of less. Video is just different from film in that way.

You can always go ahead and add film grain in post (too look like Se7en) or even video noise which will look just like what it would from the camera. Once you're stuck with ugly noise by underexposing however, you can never get rid of it (stuff like noise removal or median blurs just look awful).
 
Well, of course the detail exists. (I'm not gonna argue with that one Barry) but I personally at least don't like the look of video noise at all. I've found that with underexposed video (at least in my experience) more noise pops up when grading as compared to properly exposed video. Obviously dead on exposure is not always an option, but it's always my goal. I guess either way works. Thats what I love about filmmaking, and art really. Everyone gets their own style and they all work to getting some sort of look..
Peace,

-Harry
 
All Joshua was saying was how to achieve a particular look, which includes a high degree of grit. It's a pretty good method.

Not everything has to be done in post.
 
You're right, I guess it's really just each of our own styles of working.
More importantly though: I'm so sorry for calling you Barry by accident. I was clearly thinking and typing to quickly.
Peace,

-Harry
 
DavidBeier said:
It won awards on FILM. Underexposing can look great in film but not video.
Click to expand...

David, it did not win awards on film, I won awards on video using this technique.

I have tried and tested this technique. It results in a particular type of dirty grainy video, which is vastly different in look compared to adding grain in post. There is a major difference in the way the footage looks when intentionally underexposed and corrected to some degree in post. The overall look and gamma curve differs due to the manipulation, and increased grain is only part of the look.

It's all about the manipulation, push it one way, push it another, it will look different than if you left it alone. If you want to get interesting and unique results, you need to be willing to consider using the tools in unusual and sometimes counterintuitive ways, and ways contrary to the intended or recommended use.

If you want the gritty look of Se7en, it makes much more sense to get a clean image to start with then add grain in post rather than getting noise in camera which doesn't look nearly as good.
Click to expand...

That depends on your approach, how much you want to get in-camera vs. in post. Some looks are more authentic or unique when done in-camera.

In any case, the reference should be "AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER Vol. 76, No 10. October 1995, pp.34-40, 42 The sins of a serial killer, by David E. Williams In which Darius Khondji talks in a fairly technical way about the look of, and the lighting forSE7EN, suggesting that CHINATOWN’sJohn Alonzo may have started the colour-noir approach" Check that article out and you'll probably learn a lot about achieving this look, much of which can be translated to video, especially since the look also has much to do with production design and lighting, as much as camera and film techniques.

Josh
 
Joshua could you post some grab of your shorts in order to understand a possible result of underexposing style?
 
OmaR said:
Joshua could you post some grab of your shorts in order to understand a possible result of underexposing style?
Click to expand...
I'm on the road right now and for the next six weeks. I'll gladly post something when I get back, assuming I can remember.

A good test would be to shoot a scene with correct exposure, and compare that to the same scene with various levels of underexposure corrected to normal exposure in post. That would reveal a side-by-side difference and the effect of pushing the look to different degrees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top