[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: a few issues from Dave Corbitt
Dave Corbitt wrote
>1. I'd like to know what various people are doing to limit D-1
>signals to some kind of Legal Limits for eventual encoding?
I have strong feelings on this one. I feel that the job of the colorist, as
well as everything else, is to make the film (or tape) broadcastable. There are
a few exceptions where the transfer is an element for Henry, Flame or some
other digital edit environment, and will never be broadcast in its original
form, but mostly thats part of the job. Also I do not like to rely on (or use )
limiters, since the ones I've seen have all looked clipped, or video or
artificial. Not nice. Worse some limiters work RGB which is a different
colorspace to the strictly coded restrictions of broadcast anyway.
My philosophy is to monitor with an analogue vectorscope and waveform, and if
necesary with analogue monitoring (although the Sonys tend to be more forgiving
than some). If I have a problem color, I use Kilovectors to grade the color to
spec. That way there is no hard clip, or distortion, and I know that coded
copies of the D1 should look the same as the client saw in the telecine suite.
Of course he will still phone up a week later and say it does n't look the same
on his telly at home (g)
>Noise with URSA. Can we talk about this?
Lets talk about noise. I would tend to agree that a well tuned Mk 111 can look
quieter than a raw Ursa. Although I have to say many of the noise problems I
have encountered have been at least in part attributable to poor grading
practices. Nevertheless, it seems that the cost of more color separation and
sharper pictures is more noise. Some people advocate defocusing the tube to
reduce noise, but then you do not have sharp pictures anymore either. Also as
our colour correction capabilities expand, we have more ways to amplify and
exaggerate noise through the system. I reckon you can match a mk 111 with an
Ursa but not the other way round.
More to the point though,(sorry I'm rambling) I would refuse to use an Ursa
without a noise reducer. You 've seen the recent discussions on artifacts. I
use a DVNR 4x4 (which I recommend, in spite of giving Michael a hard time) and
believe I can remove any noise left in the picture without loss of picture
information, or artifacts. I agree it needs setting up, there's no magic
Time to go
Kevin "The cruelest lies are often told in silence"
Zurich -Robert Louis Stephenson (1881)