Show us the footage, or come up with something funnier for your next thread please, H44.
Should I pay people in post production if they do not deliver what I ask?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
Show us the footage, or come up with something funnier for your next thread please, H44.
He only had one reference so far to be checked. The reference said he was good. I do not know what the first rule of a post production supervisor is. I delivered a sample to be matched. He matched it, but has not been able match a lot of the rest of the movie aside from the sample. The match looks good overall, it's just one cameras, has no information in the contrast. That is for example, an actors hair is pitch black, in one camere, where as in the other you can see the details in the hair. Little things like that do not make for a complete match.
Both cameras were T2i's but they came out looking different. They were both on different picture style settings. Now that I have made that mistake, I know not to do that again.
Both cameras were T2i's but they came out looking different. They were both on different picture style settings. Now that I have made that mistake, I know not to do that again.
Neither do I, though between the two of us, you're the one who has done the job. It might be time to learn the first rule of being a post production supervisor, so you can learn the second rule, third rule and so on so this doesn't happen again.
Most likely from poor camera management. How was the original footage? Was there details that was lost from the blacks being crushed? Was it properly exposed? How do you know that the codec didn't lose the details in the blacks? Did you check that? Did you even know to check for that? What are you looking on? You failed to answer that question earlier. Quicktime was it? If so, stop. Most colorists don't crush the blacks by accident. Give a sample of before and after.
The truth starts to come out. So the colorist is probably doing damage control as opposed to doing their job with the combination of poor workflow choices (camera/codec choice) on top of poor operation. Since this is the first time you've mentioned this, I'm going to assume that you failed to mention to this to the grader beforehand and attempted to "Surprise screw him". Garbage in = Garbage out. Yes, you can fix little problems like this in color correction, though it can cause a problem of artifacts, which in the end can cause the cure to be worse than the disease.
What else did you screw up?
You screwed up. Pay the poor guy his money. You've bent him over enough. Learn from your mistakes and move on.
I made this mistake on my very first short film. Had two cameras, both of whom were much more experienced than me. I assumed they would coordinate their settings.. no. One had half the resolution of the other
After 2 weeks (!!!!!) of filling a thread discussing and philosophing on grading you come up with THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF INFORMATION.
You made it close to impossible to match the 2 cameras from the start.
That's why it either looks faded or too contrasty: the colorist has to mess with the contrast to hide you(r team) f#cked up while shooting.
Still waiting!
Come on, H44. Show us the footage...
Lots of people here think that you're just trolling. Prove us wrong!
Okay so the two cameras cannot match. I will accept that. But why does the colorist insist on sucking out all the contrast, on every single shot, to the point where it looks very faded? I told him to put the contrast back in and I told him exactly how much. A few weeks go by again, and why does he do? The contrast, is sucked out even more now.
This is more than just being able to match two cameras. The colorist did exactly the opposite of what I told him to do. Now is it really worth paying someone when they do the exact opposite of what I clearly explained, and even showed him pictures of, to have an idea of how much contrast? Paying someone for doing their job is one thing, but paying someone who deliberately does the opposite of what you ask, seems like they are just trying to make a fool out of you, or they have no idea of what more contrast is, as oppose to sucking it all out.
However, perhaps the colorist is not just doing it out of carelessness, and perhaps is legitimately trying hard to get the look I want. It's a dilemma cause the movie is worse now, and that's what you are paying for, but on the other hand, they did work for you and put in the hours.
When I hire people for post-production services in the future, do you think that I should decide whether or not I want to keep him/her on, after the first draft? For example, with this colorist, I thought the first draft looked too faded and the cameras I wanted to match looked mismatched even more. But I then explained to the colorist what the problem was and gave examples, from other movies as to what I wanted. I allowed to keep going. Do you think that for next time, after the first draft, if I do not like the results, I should part ways right there, so no further work or money is likely to be wasted, rather than risking them making it worse?
This is more than just being able to match two cameras. The colorist did exactly the opposite of what I told him to do. Now is it really worth paying someone when they do the exact opposite of what I clearly explained, and even showed him pictures of, to have an idea of how much contrast? Paying someone for doing their job is one thing, but paying someone who deliberately does the opposite of what you ask, seems like they are just trying to make a fool out of you, or they have no idea of what more contrast is, as oppose to sucking it all out.
However, perhaps the colorist is not just doing it out of carelessness, and perhaps is legitimately trying hard to get the look I want. It's a dilemma cause the movie is worse now, and that's what you are paying for, but on the other hand, they did work for you and put in the hours.
When I hire people for post-production services in the future, do you think that I should decide whether or not I want to keep him/her on, after the first draft? For example, with this colorist, I thought the first draft looked too faded and the cameras I wanted to match looked mismatched even more. But I then explained to the colorist what the problem was and gave examples, from other movies as to what I wanted. I allowed to keep going. Do you think that for next time, after the first draft, if I do not like the results, I should part ways right there, so no further work or money is likely to be wasted, rather than risking them making it worse?
Last edited:
Always show what you want and expect up front.
If you rip people off, even if you're unhappy with the work, word will get around and you'll have an even harder time finding people who are willing to work with you.
Pop up some screen shots of before and after to give us an idea of what you're talking about. Until that time, I'm going to play is safe and assume you're the one in the wrong. Also include the correspondence between both of you.
If you rip people off, even if you're unhappy with the work, word will get around and you'll have an even harder time finding people who are willing to work with you.
Pop up some screen shots of before and after to give us an idea of what you're talking about. Until that time, I'm going to play is safe and assume you're the one in the wrong. Also include the correspondence between both of you.
That's nothing.. it was far longer in the thread about "Why can't my colorist open my EDL" before we discovered that ONLY the EDL file was sent, no footage.
Okay thanks. The colorist is still working on it, and he really seems to want to get it right. However, Hollywood has fired people before for not doing a good job. I've read stories of focus pullers being fired, for not being able to keep everyone in focus. The reason why Hollywood fires them is because they are on the clock, time is money, and why keep someone on to waist a lot of your money, just to come off as the good guy?
Why is it so bad to fire someone, in order to keep your money to hire someone better? Is it really so bad to fire someone, and have it ruin my reputation, when Hollywood does it all the time, and it's acceptable? I know I am not Hollywood, but the same principle applies. Why waist money and pay someone to continue not doing a good job, when you can do something about it? If people watch a movie that has been colored to be unwatchable, they are not going to accept the color as good, just because I didn't want to fire the colorist and be nice. I thought that producing a movie with crappy color is worse for your reputation than firing someone. And if I can get the movie shown to everyone who worked on it with good color, than they will be more happy with it, as oppose to the color he gave me. So wouldn't it be worse for my reputation if they were not pleased with the color?
Why is it so bad to fire someone, in order to keep your money to hire someone better? Is it really so bad to fire someone, and have it ruin my reputation, when Hollywood does it all the time, and it's acceptable? I know I am not Hollywood, but the same principle applies. Why waist money and pay someone to continue not doing a good job, when you can do something about it? If people watch a movie that has been colored to be unwatchable, they are not going to accept the color as good, just because I didn't want to fire the colorist and be nice. I thought that producing a movie with crappy color is worse for your reputation than firing someone. And if I can get the movie shown to everyone who worked on it with good color, than they will be more happy with it, as oppose to the color he gave me. So wouldn't it be worse for my reputation if they were not pleased with the color?
Last edited:
It's not. For cause at least. Why are you thinking it is? Oh, that's right. It's because the issues are mostly your fault... In that case, it's a bad idea. You can get sued for firing someone due to your own incompetence. In this case, you've offered substandard pay and in turn hired a substandard grader (as no professional or at least competent grader would slave for you, since you're an idiot) expecting a professional result.
As for Hollywood, they'll fire someone for wasting the talented people's time, especially when they're paying top dollar. For this case, you're not paying top dollar and no time of anyone with talent is being wasted.
That (along with your incessant idiocy posts) are going to do more harm for your reputation than firing someone.
They don't keep a focus puller on for 3 months before firing them.
This is why, as I suggested earlier in the thread, that you get one scene back as soon as possible instead of waiting for an entire finished product and evaluate the work quickly. Now it's too late.
This is why, as I suggested earlier in the thread, that you get one scene back as soon as possible instead of waiting for an entire finished product and evaluate the work quickly. Now it's too late.
Okay thanks. He did send me back one scene at first. I liked it and told him to do the whole thing like that. But then he sent me the whole thing back a month or more later with a completely different look and the contrast was all messed up. What do you do in that sense, when they do one scene for you, and it looks good, but then they do the whole thing a completely different way after, and it looks crappy, and then you are still expected to pay up? Plus what makes him substandard really? He has a professional looking demo reel. I have seen it his reel and it looks a lot better than what he did for me. The reel is professional and he went to film school and has degrees in color grading and post production VFX. So if a degree and a demo reel do not make you professional, than what does?
I also do not see how the issues are my fault exactly. I liked the original scene test he did. So I said make the rest like that. Then he sends it back where the contrast is all messed up and too high from shot to shot. That's not what the original sample he sent was like. I then ask for it with the contrast less, and he sucks it all out completely thereby making a completely faded image. That's him doing his own thing, when I asked him to make it like the original test sample he sent me. How is it my fault if he does something completely different than what I approved of him before? I will pay him for it but from now on I will do that. If I do not like the first draft I will then stop right there, instead of hoping he/she can improve it. I also would have to respectfully disagree that it doesn't count as a waste if I am not paying top dollar. Money is still money, and I cannot afford to throw it around for it be wasted. I'll accept it if it's my fault but I did not tell him to add too much contrast, then suck it all out, thus erasing a lot of data in the footage, and loosing quality as a result. He made it worse than it had to be.
Basically the movie looks like this: When it was shot, you saw the detail on objects that were black. If an actors hair was black, you would see all the hairs on his head still. If an actor wore a black jacket, you would still see the buttons and the lapels on the jacket. Now when it comes to black objects like those, they are pitch black and you cannot see anything. Now that all the contrast is sucked out, it's all faded looking and you cannot see anything in the black objects, which are now faded. Now, I know I may have shot the movie wrong to begin with, which is my fault, but if all the black objects become pitch black after they are colored, isn't that his fault? Why would he do that? What's the point of making a jacket so it's just a black blob where you cannot see anything? Or with hair? Was that really necessary, if I did something wrong, when the information was recorded in camera to begin with?
I'll pay him off, but I am not going to use his color cause it will harm the movie, and give a bad impression to anyone who sees it. Would it be bad if I put his name in the credits, but then if he sees the finished product later, he will realize that I didn't use any of his color in the end, even though I credited him like we agreed? Will that be bad? Cause I can't use his color now.
I also do not see how the issues are my fault exactly. I liked the original scene test he did. So I said make the rest like that. Then he sends it back where the contrast is all messed up and too high from shot to shot. That's not what the original sample he sent was like. I then ask for it with the contrast less, and he sucks it all out completely thereby making a completely faded image. That's him doing his own thing, when I asked him to make it like the original test sample he sent me. How is it my fault if he does something completely different than what I approved of him before? I will pay him for it but from now on I will do that. If I do not like the first draft I will then stop right there, instead of hoping he/she can improve it. I also would have to respectfully disagree that it doesn't count as a waste if I am not paying top dollar. Money is still money, and I cannot afford to throw it around for it be wasted. I'll accept it if it's my fault but I did not tell him to add too much contrast, then suck it all out, thus erasing a lot of data in the footage, and loosing quality as a result. He made it worse than it had to be.
Basically the movie looks like this: When it was shot, you saw the detail on objects that were black. If an actors hair was black, you would see all the hairs on his head still. If an actor wore a black jacket, you would still see the buttons and the lapels on the jacket. Now when it comes to black objects like those, they are pitch black and you cannot see anything. Now that all the contrast is sucked out, it's all faded looking and you cannot see anything in the black objects, which are now faded. Now, I know I may have shot the movie wrong to begin with, which is my fault, but if all the black objects become pitch black after they are colored, isn't that his fault? Why would he do that? What's the point of making a jacket so it's just a black blob where you cannot see anything? Or with hair? Was that really necessary, if I did something wrong, when the information was recorded in camera to begin with?
I'll pay him off, but I am not going to use his color cause it will harm the movie, and give a bad impression to anyone who sees it. Would it be bad if I put his name in the credits, but then if he sees the finished product later, he will realize that I didn't use any of his color in the end, even though I credited him like we agreed? Will that be bad? Cause I can't use his color now.
Last edited:
So you're saying, it's not him, it's you. Then you shouldn't be a putz and fire him.
That's fine. It's still your fault.
Yep, you complain about the black being crushed and also ask for contrast to be reduced, you're going to get a more faded image, especially if it had the correct contrast when you watched it.
It sounds like he's following your hair brained instructions.
Another how long is a piece of string question. If you've given him footage where he has to match look to look and some shots have all the details in the blacks removed, then the only option is to crush the other blacks, otherwise the shots won't match. If this it the case, then you've caused a lot more work for this color grader through your own incompetence and owe him a lot more money than first agreed to.
Last edited:
You could offer to pay him less because you're not using his stuff, that might be a good compromise.
Is the original scene he sent still graded the same way or did he mess that up too in the final product ?
You should at least post a couple screen shots for the sake of discussion.
Is the original scene he sent still graded the same way or did he mess that up too in the final product ?
You should at least post a couple screen shots for the sake of discussion.
Last edited:
The original sample I sent him was colored by him much better. The details in the blacks were still there and you could still see hair, and black clothes, without them being pitch black. I asked him to give that look for the movie, but to add more contrast, but he added way too much. Then he took it all out, but all the detail in the hair and clothes and all that is gone.
Now I did a test myself on Premiere Pro with the contrast. If you increase the contrast, the black objects become pitch black. But if you decrease the contrast after, the details are still there. I don't know why the details are gone when you decrease it on his color grading program or whatever he is doing.
I can pay him some more, I will accept that. But it's time for him to use some common sense, and understand make jackets and hair and other darker objects, pitch black, and still expect it to look good. I understand that some shots may be like that cause of the other camera. But I only used the other camera for one shoot, and it's only a few shots.
Also in my original footage, most of the footage does match, it's just a few shots from another camera in one scene that do not. Now in the video he showed me, a lot of the shots do not match now, even though they matched before. He made more shots not match. Why would he do that? There are also other scenes where actors walk from dark rooms into bright rooms. When they get into the bright rooms the contrast increases a lot, and when they walk back into dark rooms, the contrast decreases and looks faded. Why is it necessary to do that, the audience can see it change. How is that good?
There was no reason to touch shots, creating mismatches, when there was nothing wrong with them before. I did not ask him at all to do that. He is creating extra problems himself. He said that the contrast has the same readings from shot to shot, but I mean the program does not know if it is, he should use his eyes. And I do not see how the contrast could be different from shot to shot, since all those shots, matched when shots to begin with. It's not like I switched the contrast in the camera when moving it from shot to shot, I left it the same, and only used one camera for those scenes.
I don't understand why the whole movie has to be like that, and then with all the contrast sucked out after. Why does that have to be? It is made worse than it had to be. I will wait till he's done before I consider post anything. He's still working on and we can see what he comes up with, perhaps it's still salvageable. I will pay him more, but I will have to make an imposition, that we work together in the same room, rather than him doing it all on his own time, and sending to me later all the time, cause doing so results in him not seeing that you cannot do all these things, and it will therefore, waste a lot less of time. I will do that, if it's a good idea.
Either that I could just pay him for what he has done, now but will have to use my original footage, and credit him. It saves money and time this way, but he will be credited for color he didn't do, and I will have to attempt to color grade it myself and go with that.
Now I did a test myself on Premiere Pro with the contrast. If you increase the contrast, the black objects become pitch black. But if you decrease the contrast after, the details are still there. I don't know why the details are gone when you decrease it on his color grading program or whatever he is doing.
I can pay him some more, I will accept that. But it's time for him to use some common sense, and understand make jackets and hair and other darker objects, pitch black, and still expect it to look good. I understand that some shots may be like that cause of the other camera. But I only used the other camera for one shoot, and it's only a few shots.
Also in my original footage, most of the footage does match, it's just a few shots from another camera in one scene that do not. Now in the video he showed me, a lot of the shots do not match now, even though they matched before. He made more shots not match. Why would he do that? There are also other scenes where actors walk from dark rooms into bright rooms. When they get into the bright rooms the contrast increases a lot, and when they walk back into dark rooms, the contrast decreases and looks faded. Why is it necessary to do that, the audience can see it change. How is that good?
There was no reason to touch shots, creating mismatches, when there was nothing wrong with them before. I did not ask him at all to do that. He is creating extra problems himself. He said that the contrast has the same readings from shot to shot, but I mean the program does not know if it is, he should use his eyes. And I do not see how the contrast could be different from shot to shot, since all those shots, matched when shots to begin with. It's not like I switched the contrast in the camera when moving it from shot to shot, I left it the same, and only used one camera for those scenes.
I don't understand why the whole movie has to be like that, and then with all the contrast sucked out after. Why does that have to be? It is made worse than it had to be. I will wait till he's done before I consider post anything. He's still working on and we can see what he comes up with, perhaps it's still salvageable. I will pay him more, but I will have to make an imposition, that we work together in the same room, rather than him doing it all on his own time, and sending to me later all the time, cause doing so results in him not seeing that you cannot do all these things, and it will therefore, waste a lot less of time. I will do that, if it's a good idea.
Either that I could just pay him for what he has done, now but will have to use my original footage, and credit him. It saves money and time this way, but he will be credited for color he didn't do, and I will have to attempt to color grade it myself and go with that.
Last edited:
If you saw the problems in the edit, and they're only a few shots, why did you do the absolutely most stupid thing you could and leave them in?
You've shot the film like a blind cinematographer, asked him to match the shots, raise the blacks, lessen the contrast and you're wondering why it looks like a polished turd.
I have a theory. The grader still hasn't seen the original footage and he's working from your x.264 export. Exactly what you were told... NOT TO DO. Of course there's a reason you're afraid to show and footage.... Or you're an insanity patient sent here to spread the contagion.
It wasn't like that in edit. The contrast was all sucked out after the colorist touched it. Before it was fine. I just ask for a little contrast to the footage, and he adds a lot in some and sucks a lot out in others.
Or do you mean why did I put the nonmatching shots from the other camera in originally? I wasn't going to use the shots at first. I asked my fellow filmmakers and friends to help out with the editing, and give me their opinions on the best takes. They chose sections of the takes, from those few shots, taken from the other camera that did not match. I asked them why those shots, since they do not match. They said it was because those shots had the best acting it, and acting is more important than color matching. Bad acting will take viewers out of the movie more, compared to cameras with non-matching color.
I showed it to other people as well, and they agreed that the acting was more important than the color. So I chose those nonmatching shots, based on several other people's recommendations, that it was worth it for the acting. I then hired a colorist, to be the best he could to match them while at the same time color the whole movie, and give it more of a polished look.
Or do you mean why did I put the nonmatching shots from the other camera in originally? I wasn't going to use the shots at first. I asked my fellow filmmakers and friends to help out with the editing, and give me their opinions on the best takes. They chose sections of the takes, from those few shots, taken from the other camera that did not match. I asked them why those shots, since they do not match. They said it was because those shots had the best acting it, and acting is more important than color matching. Bad acting will take viewers out of the movie more, compared to cameras with non-matching color.
I showed it to other people as well, and they agreed that the acting was more important than the color. So I chose those nonmatching shots, based on several other people's recommendations, that it was worth it for the acting. I then hired a colorist, to be the best he could to match them while at the same time color the whole movie, and give it more of a polished look.
Last edited: