New Article: Dealing with the Colorist

[scottspears]

I got bored and wrote this new article, "Dealing With the Colorist". A friend of mine was going through hell with telecine, so it inspired me to write this article to help folks avoid problems. For those who don't know who the colorist is, they're the person who operates the machine that does the color correction, etc... when you transfer your film to video. Most of the time it goes well, but sometimes it doesn't.

www.scottspears.net

Check it out on the Filmmaking Page.

Scott

[Zensteve]

That was pretty interesting, Mr Spears.

I'm really curious as to how all those slated notations look... any chance you can find the time one day to plop up a short video on what the telecine person would be seeing?

[scottspears]

Originally Posted by Zensteve

That was pretty interesting, Mr Spears.

I'm really curious as to how all those slated notations look... any chance you can find the time one day to plop up a short video on what the telecine person would be seeing?

My pal, Ross of Sonnyboo.com, has threatened to put together an Indie Film Tip on telecine sessions so maybe it could be included in that tip.

(Hint, hint, Ross, if you're reading this, start editing.)

Scott

[indietalk]

I read the article, and was wondering, do you always do supervised color correction for the raw footage? Why not get a "best light", or "overall" transfer, that charges by the foot, and then, with the edited master, go back and get a supervided tape-to-tape on the DaVinci? Just curious. There's no point in paying to time footage you are not going to use.

[Zensteve]

Potentially stupid Q here

Does B/W film have to be colour-corrected at all?

(Thinking about shadows & contrasts)

[scottspears]

Originally Posted by indietalk

I read the article, and was wondering, do you always do supervised color correction for the raw footage? Why not get a "best light", or "overall" transfer, that charges by the foot, and then, with the edited master, go back and get a supervided tape-to-tape on the DaVinci? Just curious. There's no point in paying to time footage you are not going to use.

I tend to do supervised because if something were wildly off in the middle of roll and they usually set the levels and correction for the first few shots, then that shot would be terriblly off and most likely you'd have to come back and find it and re-transfer that shot. An example, if you were shooting night exteriors that we a bit under exposed so the colorist bumped up the levels and later in the roll it switches to daylight exteriors and they're a little hot, then they would be really blown out. I'll be honest, if the budget were really tight and I'm pretty good at nailing exposures, I'd try the one light thing.

Many years ago I was shooting a film and I left the camera while the AC checked the gate. They left the aperature wide open. I didn't catch it, so I shot something that was 4 stops over. Well in the final film it looked fine, so you have a latitude with today's film stocks.

I have done what I call a rolling best light, which is semi-supervised. Usually that entails setting the levels for each location or scene and letting it roll until there's a major change, like location or lighting set up. It can really speed up the transfer rate. You need a colorist who's willing to work with you and you trust.

Scott

[indietalk]

Yes Plus, you can also fix problems in color correction, like flares, windows blowing out, etc.

[indietalk]

I did a best light, or what some call an "overall", not one light. One light will always have to be retransferred. I understand what you are saying about the changes on the roll. I also agree about working with the colorist. At DuArt, the best light transfer is similar to what you are calling a "rolling best light". It wasn't supervised, but they follow the camera reports, and you are allowed to supply scene notes on the camera reports for major changes. It worked out well for me, everything was almost dead on, and I went back and did a supervised tape to tape with the edited master. Good article.

PS. I had 4 hours of film for a 20 minute short. I was thinking along those lines when I asked. If I had been more conservative, I'm sure I would have done supervised from the start.