craig at optimus.com
Sat Sep 3 20:28:41 BST 2011
I appreciate your thoughts. I may be ignorant. But, I do not agree that forcing a database on our industry that communicates just primary color corrections is anything other than lazy and ignorant. I do understand the idea David - truly I do. I realize what's it's supposed to communicate. While we're at giving people a way to
communicate, can the committee please work on a standard that goes the other way? You know, one where colorists could voice how best to set ISO for different cameras, what file format might be more appropriate for capture and what colorspace might be more useful? Because as Artists we've been told for a long time that our opinion doesn't matter, and we should fuck off. The CDL undermines what we do and devalues our place in the process. Primary color corrections - in this case viewed in a vacuum - are pointless in relation to modern image processing. Why not start with basics?
Really? I'm supposed to follow faithfully what a DP set on set and with a person of who knows what kind of skill, on what platform, and on what monitoring? That is helpful to me? It's not. Never has been, and it's not to any colorist. Talking, references both visual and otherwise, and a relationship will never be replaced.
I do, in fact, tell people to stuff it based on what I have in my hands and what clients I'm with. All the time. Nicely to be sure, but my creatives, producers, and the client paying for the job could give a shit what the DP says about how it should look. The DP is not often concerned with commerce, nor is the director. The CDL seems to be designed for feature mindsets and politics. What I will say again, is that process does not represent the majority of color correction being done today, the majority of users, or the majority of the common uses of gear.
Colorists deserve a better place in the process than to be limited to a useless database - and those that promote the CDL are in fact promoting laziness and ignorance between colorist and DP.
If you missed that the first time you're not inferring enough from my usually caustic approach. I'm not angry because I disagree, I'm angry because this line of thinking promotes automation, robotics, and the absolute disrespect of my former craft. I no longer have to hide behind ass kissing, but I never did much anyway.
Do a little digging on me. See what manufacturers and clients say.
Oops, I forgot. Hick from the Midwest.
Still giving a shit about our craft.
This has been a Mobile Transmission
On Sep 3, 2011, at 1:40 PM, David Bernstein <db.color at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Generally I have great respect for your comments and ideas, but I think you're a little out of line here. I think perhaps things work a little differently here in the TV/feature market of LA, as opposed to your commercial-rich world of Chicago. The ASC CDL was developed as a product of the work by the ASC Technology Committee, a volunteer group made up of some of the most hard working and knowledgable professionals in our industry. It sprung from a desire by the cinematographers to protect the integrity of their images by maintaining some level of control and consistency over the increasingly digital nature of the production and post processes. The CDL was meant to be a common starting point in the dailies process that would allow a look created by a DP to be maintained regardless of what facility or platform might eventually perform the final color grade. Obviously there are a number of choices and systems in play, and the decision of who or what
> will be used for the DI process is not always in the hands of those whose visions we are attempting to serve. The CDL was not intended to supplant or subvert the various creative tools in the market, but as a means to have a simple common language between platforms so that any choice could be made for the final grading without having to forego any initial look managment that may have occurred on-set or under direct control of the DP, who may not be allowed or available to participate in the final grade later on.
> To call these folks lazy or uneducated merely reflects your own ignorance of the reality we face here, and does them a great disservice. Lou has personally invested countless hours over several years in creating the language of the ASC CDL, and the fact that it has become a valuable tool to the filmmakers we serve is a testament to his dedication and expertise, as well as to those others who served selflesly on the various ASC committees that have done some amazing work in educating colleagues and standardizing workflows in this increasingly complicated arena we work in.
> And to use your own words, yes they do own the aesthetic, and since we are really a service industry, we do have to kiss their asses a little. I'm sure you do this every day in your own suite (or did, if you are no longer in the chair). Or was it your method to tell your clients to stuff it and then force your own creative ideas upon them? I wouldn't think so. It's a collaboration, but in the end the customer is always right, IMHO.
> David Bernstein
> Freelance Colorist
> From: Craig Leffel <craig at optimus.com>
>> This is exactly the problem. The only people that need this are the lazy and the uneducated. The willfully ignorant.
>> A Davinci is not Color is not a Mistika is not a Baselight, and there is no reason at all the gear should share this impossible kind of commonality. We are not talking about something simple like an EDL. We are talking about proprietary software, companies of various character and ethics, let alone the differences in the user base amongst the operators themselves.
>> We're not running cmx typewriters.
>> This is not some simple RGB database. You know this all too well.
>> Why promote this nonsense instead of telling DPs and manufacturers to stuff this idea because it's moronic?
>> Yeah, I know. We're supposed to kiss their asses because they own the aesthetic, right? Wrong. And we all know it. Pointless.
>> Craig Leffel
>> Former Senior Colorist
More information about the Tig