Should I pay people in post production if they do not deliver what I ask?

Difficult situation - friends of mine have been in a similar position recently. My advice? Work with the guy to ensure it gets fixed in the most trouble-free way for both parties, if that doesn't work pay him and stick it down to a lesson learned. Find someone better next time.
 
Okay thanks. Well so far the guy sent me another sample copy, with the fixes made. Now the faded look is gone, cause he added in a fair amount of contrast, but the contrast is too much. Black clothes and black hair is pretty much pitch black in areas, but the fading is gone, which is good. We are trying to get it right, but his monitor, has a much higher contrast than my monitor. I also showed it to friends to compare. It seems that certain laptop monitors might be more sensitive to contrast, compared to a desktop monitor, but that is just my guess from comparisons I have made so far.

I have tried calibrating my monitor as best as I could but it's hard to know who's is properly calibrated since his has more contrast, causing him to not know how much is too much, or how little is too little it seems. Is their a way of being able to tell, so it will look good when sending it to festivals, for big screen standards?
 
Okay thanks. Well so far the guy sent me another sample copy, with the fixes made. Now the faded look is gone, cause he added in a fair amount of contrast, but the contrast is too much. Black clothes and black hair is pretty much pitch black in areas, but the fading is gone, which is good. We are trying to get it right, but his monitor, has a much higher contrast than my monitor. I also showed it to friends to compare. It seems that certain laptop monitors might be more sensitive to contrast, compared to a desktop monitor, but that is just my guess from comparisons I have made so far.

I have tried calibrating my monitor as best as I could but it's hard to know who's is properly calibrated since his has more contrast, causing him to not know how much is too much, or how little is too little it seems. Is their a way of being able to tell, so it will look good when sending it to festivals, for big screen standards?

1) A lot of laptops still display about 6bits of color.
In human language: highlights and shadows are less clear.

2)
I told you before: you can't trust your eyes when calibarating.
Get a colorspyder to do the job.

If he is serious, his monitor is calibrated.
I know his problem: I've got an Eizo screen with a 10-bit displayport that has a way larger and more accurate gamut than most screens. I can see subtle shadows and highlights other (mostly not calibrated) screens don't even show.
This sometimes leads to weird conversations with on of the producers I sometimes work for: I put a subtle texture in the background of a motion graphic. He doesn't see it.
I turned out his screen was set a bit darker, because that was less staining for his eyes. (He's mostly designing web apps for his multi-media production company, video is just a little part of what they offer)

On the other hand: most screens are not calibrated at all, so watching it on such a screen can tell you what some people (with the same non-calibration) will see.

blablabla

Calibrate your screen with the tools that will help you!

3) There is no festival standard for contrast.
 
Color spyder ?

the spider website has a ton of different products. can you be more specific
 
Interestingly, everything you've (WalterB) said about calibration and non-calibration with regards to colour correction also applies to audio post!

One needs an accurately calibrated and revealing listening environment but one also needs to mix in a way which is applicable to the median audience (who do not have calibrated listening environments). So ultimately it's a combination of the right equipment and knowledge/experience, which is not easy to find if you're paying peanuts! Theatrical sound and colour (in the case of higher tier film festivals) adds a further complication in that there is a well defined calibration but on the sound side at least, it's not possible to emulate that calibration with consumer equipment or even with standard professional music studio equipment.

G
 
Totally agree with APE regarding the audience. It's not enough to have a reference system, and so important to cross reference. How well a mix translates is paramount. I can only imagine how much work must go into high end cinema sound production.

I was actually discussing some other similarities between audio and photograhic representation last night, and how we apply similar technological and psychologic techniques to both of them, particularly in post and when mastering. Specifically in one case, the similarities of the importance of perceived loudness in the midrange, vs the top and bottom end of the audible spectrum. A lot of noobs master everything with a smile and forget about the most important middle, where as the midrange in any loudness-war pro release is often horribly loud.

The same preference for midrange detail vs highs and lows often occur in photography too - whereby we want the sweet top and bottom. But, especially once it comes to print/display, most 'correctly exposed' photos seem to really benefit from a subtle lift to the mids. Just like our ears, our eyes are more sensitive to the midrange than we might be aware of. The prevalence of overcooked hdr and dri photography all over the place is a great example of good techniques badly used. There's nothign inherently wrong with tonemapping etc (quite the contrary), but I often experience much the same within it's musical counterpart once the mids get cranked in the mastering house to increase perceived loudness.

Only lots of experience of translation across reference points can teach us how to find our balance between what we want other people to see/hear, and what they're actually going to get - all the histograms, spectral analysers, reference systems etc in the world can only get us so close.

Sadly, unless we're looking at Death Magnetic levels of fail, the majority of audiences really don't seem to care. :no:
 
Last edited:
Okay thanks. I cannot afford much right now, cause I decided to use my money to hire someone who actually went to school and had a good demo reel to do it instead. So what are the differences between these ones on Amazon? They are the spyder4expresses, but which model is the right one?

http://www.amazon.ca/s/ref=nb_sb_no...-keywords=spyder4express&sprefix=spyder4e,aps

However, if my monitor is still not properly calibrated, and a colorist sends me samples, and they look faded, or over contrasty, then it probably is, since me and my friends are seeing the same thing on our computers, right? I mean I play other movies on my computers, that have a more middle contrast, so if the colorist is suppose to make it so that it looks good on the average monitors, then it should look good on ours', when other movies do, right?
 
Last edited:
How well a mix translates is paramount. I can only imagine how much work must go into high end cinema sound production.

Absolutely, it's all about translation (!), almost anyone with enough time can create a mix which sounds good in the room in which it was created, getting it to sound good on a range of consumer playback environments is far more tricky. Incidentally, there really aren't any translation issues in high-end cinema sound! This is because cinemas are constructed and calibrated to a specification and the rooms used to mix theatrical sound are constructed and calibrated to exactly the same specification. So in theory at least, there is no translation per se. The translation issue only rears it's ugly head when mixing for cinema in a music studio or mix room designed for some other purpose, say a TV mix room for example. There's also often a problem with low and most mid tier film festivals, where they have to jerry-rig the sound systems and take them out of calibration in order to playback the formats and mixes of amateur filmmakers. Many/most film festivals are therefore a bit of a lottery as regards translation.

Specifically in one case, the similarities of the importance of perceived loudness in the midrange, vs the top and bottom end of the audible spectrum. ... Just like our ears, our eyes are more sensitive to the midrange than we might be aware of.

Again, absolutely! Anyone with any decent amount of professional experience mixing for TV would know intimately the importance of the mid-freqs. Coming back to cinema, the actual type/construction of the speakers employed in cinema sound systems are quite different to those used in consumer and pro audio systems and they have a different response, particularly in those all important mid-freqs. This is one of the reasons why there is effectively no accurate/predictable method of translation between the cinema and any type of mix room other than a purpose built theatrical mix room.

Sadly, unless we're looking at Death Magnetic levels of fail, the majority of audiences really don't seem to care.

Unfortunately this isn't true of sound. Audiences generally don't seem to care (or consciously notice) good, very good or often even excellent sound. However, poor sound or even just slightly below par sound causes howls of protest. The BBC's recent "MumbleGate" debacle is a good example, plus the fact that sound quality is consistently at or very near the top in numbers of complaints received.

I mean I play other movies on my computers, that have a more middle contrast, so if the colorist is suppose to make it so that it looks good on the average monitors, then it should look good on ours', when other movies do, right?

Not necessarily, how do you know you are comparing like with like? DCP for example uses a different color-space to TV, so you could be comparing a DCP grade with say a BluRay movie which may have been re-graded for consumer use. Although, from what you've posted on this matter, I very much doubt your colourist has graded or would know how to grade for DCP. I don't know that much about picture grading but this is certainly true with sound. If you actually got a cinema sound mix and played it back on your computer (or even a high quality consumer sound system) it wouldn't sound good! Watching a theatrical movie on TV (or DVD/bluray) you are not listening to the theatrical mix, you are listening to a mix specifically made for the format; TV or DVD/Bluray!

Furthermore, you would also have to define "good". Maybe these other movies look OK on your computer but if you were to compare how they look on your computer with how they are supposed to look (on the big screen), maybe they're not so good after all? Again, this is often the case with sound, people will happily watch a film on their TV or computer without ever realising the huge percentage of detail they are missing, which would dramatically change the "feel" of the film.

G
 
Unfortunately this isn't true of sound. Audiences generally don't seem to care (or consciously notice) good, very good or often even excellent sound. However, poor sound or even just slightly below par sound causes howls of protest. The BBC's recent "MumbleGate" debacle is a good example, plus the fact that sound quality is consistently at or very near the top in numbers of complaints received.

Yeah, the sound (especially dialogue) audience is a lot less forgiving than the music audience. Clear dialogue seems to elude many amateur (and a surprising amount of professional) productions still. The main area I notice people struggle with is always the sub500hz mumbly boomy mush. Ack.

(I even have a preset room curve on my digital mixer to reign it in if it gets too much on some movies :P)
 
So what are the differences between these ones on Amazon? They are the spyder4expresses, but which model is the right one?

However, if my monitor is still not properly calibrated, and a colorist sends me samples, and they look faded, or over contrasty, then it probably is, since me and my friends are seeing the same thing on our computers, right?

You're talking about a relatively complex topic here. There are thousands of viewing devices out there, each act slightly different to the other. On top of that, then you have user calibration so they set it the way (or random most of the time) they want.

There are a couple schools of thought. School 1: Always watch your footage on a calibrated monitor in the proper viewing environment (The environment cannot be stressed enough). School 2: Look at it how your client will look at it. If you're talking youtube, then the iPad is a very common device to test with.

Since you're looking at festivals, you really should be looking at a projection style environment. A darkened room with minimal lights, definitely no light spilling on to the screen. Some (most I think) projectors have a lower contrast range than monitors so this is something to consider. Asking your friends to watch on their laptops and give their opinion is about as useful as most of your opinions on filmmaking technique. When was the last time you saw a film festival project on to a laptop screen or a desktop monitor?

As for the watching environment: There is a massive difference between what a show looks under proper 6500k lights without spill hitting your monitor, at work in your office with green tinted fluro lights, and at Grandma's home with your 2800k light bulbs from home depot and marone drapes hanging behind with afternoon sun shining in through the window. Of course it will look different.

On top of that, grades need to be different for their expected viewing environment. If you grade so it looks right on a computer monitor, it'll look like crap in a cinema. They need to have a (slightly) different grade.

Not saying your colorists work is great, I'm saying your testing methods may lead you to coming up with idiotic conclusions. Just as if you complained about a sound mix by listening on your internal laptop speakers.
 
Okay thanks, but most movies only have one finished copy which they use for TV grade, and for cinema grade, right? Or is it normal for everyone to have two grades of their movies, one for theaters and one for DVD? I also want to give the cast and crew DVD copies, as well as some other people, so I will I need a seperate grade to look good for DVD? I know asking friends to watch it on theirs, is not professional, but since everyone is watching movies on their laptops nowadays, I figure that's the audience you have to aim for, since it's become normal viewing. But I see your point, they are not very helpful of course.
 
but most movies only have one finished copy which they use for TV grade, and for cinema grade, right?

If you grade so it looks right on a computer monitor, it'll look like crap in a cinema. They need to have a (slightly) different grade.

Are you a moron? Do you read? Look at the post above this question. The answer is ALREADY THERE! And you wonder why you're not getting what you want.

I also want to give the cast and crew DVD copies, as well as some other people, so I will I need a seperate grade to look good for DVD?

This is what professionals do for their releases. You're far from professional, it's overkill for you, though, expecting the grader to make it look good on your laptop gives you a half decent chance it'll look less than stellar on the silver screen. This is why virtually everyone answers your questions with more questions. You're always missing critical information which causes you to get into these problems in the first place and you lack the fundamental understanding of the process to even ask the right questions. You're the wrong person to be leading post production. At a starting point, you need to want to learn which first involves listening (and reading) what is being said.

We didn't even hit upon the topic where you're probably using Quicktime to watch the work your grader has done, without knowing that this would just prove you're your own worst enemy. The way you are, I'm not surprised the grader didn't bring up this question.

since everyone is watching movies on their laptops nowadays

Exactly my point. You don't listen and you sprout unfounded statements based on your fantasy world. How do you know EVERYONE is watching MOVIES on their LAPTOPS these days? I wish you luck with your festival submission. I do hope that EVERYONE at the festival will be watching your film in their LAPTOP.

But I see your point, they are not very helpful of course.

Of course it's not helpful. It's another one of those "How do I get it to fit everything?" question and the answer is almost always, you cannot.
 
Okay I will do exactly as you said, and not deviate into other ideas. I was going by the majority of people who watch movies their laptops as well, but I should not include everyone in that category, you're right.

The colorist also told me that if I had shot in a camera that shoots RAW, that the grade will be easier? Is that true? All I wanted is a somewhat high contrasty look and not faded, like what he did, but is it really difficult to get such a look when grading T2 i footage, if shot under correct exposure?

I will do my best with this color grade, and then later get the spyder, for the next project. Would the spyder also be able to color correct my camera monitor so it shoots under the right contrast and is not too dark or too light and the right hue, and white balance, etc? Or does it work on computer monitors and TVs only?
 
Yes of course shooting RAW makes it easier to grade. Not everyone has access to RAW, however.

How about you post a screencap of the original footage, and his graded footage, to see if it's as bad as you're making out?
 
Yeah, the sound (especially dialogue) audience is a lot less forgiving than the music audience.

That's because of a fundamental difference between the two. Music is essentially abstract, for example, there is no right or wrong electric guitar sound, there is only a subjective better or worse, and the sound of drums/drum kit in a music mix usually bares little or no resemblance to the real sound a drum kit actually makes. This is not true with film sound however, where we are dealing with sounds and speech which are not only very well defined (rather than abstract) but which occur in the types of acoustic environments which the audience have experienced their whole lives.

Clear dialogue seems to elude many amateur (and a surprising amount of professional) productions still. The main area I notice people struggle with is always the sub500hz mumbly boomy mush. Ack.

This is usually because of the nature of highly directional mics in enclosed spaces and the effect of reflections/room modes/comb filtering, etc. A skilled boom op can certainly help but nevertheless, it's fairly uncommon that I don't need to make any adjustments somewhere in the 200Hz - 500Hz range and usually it's a case of some degree of incremental improvement rather than a perfect solution. Also, the work done in the high-mid freqs (2kHz - 3.5kHz) can have a significant effect on the perception of what's going on in the low-mids.

Okay thanks, but most movies only have one finished copy which they use for TV grade, and for cinema grade, right? Or is it normal for everyone to have two grades of their movies, one for theaters and one for DVD?

As Sweetie said, "don't you read", either to what Sweetie or I have already posted? Where on earth did you get the idea that "most movies only have one finished copy"? Even at the film festival level (albeit the higher tier film festival level) there will usually be at least two versions (a submission version and an exhibition version) and at the big budget Hollywood level, there maybe as many as 70 different versions (although not all with entirely different grading or sound mixes)!

G
 
This is usually because of the nature of highly directional mics in enclosed spaces and the effect of reflections/room modes/comb filtering, etc.

...not to mention that by the time it's reached the listeners ears the sound has gone through yet more, thanks to the playback environment and effects of the average home viewer's 'cinema' set up.

Most people seem to 'know' (thanks to that helpful chap in the hi-fi shop) that if you shove a speaker up against a wall or into a corner, "you get more bass, don't you?". It might be fine if they like boxy bass guitars and kicks, but it just butchers the vocal/speech clarity. Even the best translative mix ain't got a chance. :D

Do you film guys always have a preference for the driest source audio as possible, or is there ever a time when you want some of the room/ambience there?
 
Last edited:
I was told long before on here, that when it comes to grading, that it was normal for filmmakers to only have one copy of the movie out for distribution. So I thought I should only put out on therefore. Now even if it's my fault that the colorist cannot match up both cameras because I did not shoot with cameras that could shoot RAW, I just feel it was the colorists job tell me that before, that he cannot do RAW, as oppose to waiting to tell me after he has already worked on the whole thing, and it's time to pay up. Why tell me then? Plus when I color grade T2i footage, it looks fine, and I don't think I need RAW to grade. I just hired him cause that's what he does, and his demo reel suggests, he can come up with better movie looks than me.

Well he is trying to fix it but is having a lot of problems, and it has already taken so much time, I just feel like calling it done now, and perhaps just paying up. How much time do you think I should spend on this with him, as oppose to moving onto further projects? It would be easier if he would agree to work together but he wants to do it all on his own without much work communication other than email, unfortunately.
 
The colorist also told me that if I had shot in a camera that shoots RAW, that the grade will be easier? Is that true? All I wanted is a somewhat high contrasty look and not faded, like what he did, but is it really difficult to get such a look when grading T2 i footage, if shot under correct exposure?

It's not quite as simple as that. This of it like this, pour some paint over an important document so that about 75% of it is covered with paint. Send an assistant to Kinko's to make a copy and yell at them because it's not as good as the original before the paint was spilled on it. What I mean is the difference between shooting raw and the t2i is you're missing about 75% (or more) of the information so what a colorist is exceptionally limited. You're often limited to applying looks. When that much data is eliminated due to the lossy compression, what you can do can be limited in the color correction process without creating artifacts. A colorist if often reduced to damage control instead of doing the creative side of their job. This is not always the case, but it often is.

Now even if it's my fault that the colorist cannot match up both cameras because I did not shoot with cameras that could shoot RAW, I just feel it was the colorists job tell me that before, that he cannot do RAW, as oppose to waiting to tell me after he has already worked on the whole thing, and it's time to pay up.

Nope. Still your fault. Did you hire a post production supervisor who is experienced? If not, then you took it all on yourself. YOU picked the wrong person under the wrong conditions. Did you ask the appropriate questions first? It's a safe bet you didn't. You didn't understand the risks of working with a colorist where you cannot visit and review the work.

Why tell me then? Plus when I color grade T2i footage, it looks fine, and I don't think I need RAW to grade. I just hired him cause that's what he does, and his demo reel suggests, he can come up with better movie looks than me.

Cause you're a moron. You don't know what you're doing or who you need. Your idea of grading is applying a look I'd assume. If you can do a better job (which you cannot), have the time spare and still hire an inferior worker to do the job, you only have your incompetence to blame.

Well he is trying to fix it but is having a lot of problems, and it has already taken so much time, I just feel like calling it done now, and perhaps just paying up. How much time do you think I should spend on this with him, as oppose to moving onto further projects? It would be easier if he would agree to work together but he wants to do it all on his own without much work communication other than email, unfortunately.

You failed to (I have to say it again) test and manage your workflow.
 
When I hired the colorist to match the footage from camera to camera, I asked him if it was matchable, and if he could it. He said yes, he could it. He told me that. So I did ask him before hand, and he should have told me no, if it was a no.
 
Back
Top