[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Colorists: question about correcting tungsten film shot indaylight

dlew at interport.net (Darren Lew) asked:

>What differences have you noticed when correcting tungsten balanced film
>shot in daylight with either
>1) no filter
>2) a Tiffen LLD filter
>3) an 85 filter
>With any of the above options, is one more appropriate for a given
>situation than another? Can the color correction be so good that
>there's no reason to use a filter
>at all?

A few months ago, I worked on a network special (DISNEY'S IMAGINEERS, which
I think is on ABC next week or the week after) where the client brought in
about 20,000' of 16mm neg., and about 1/3 of it was shot with a the 85A
filter, and the rest wasn't (because he "forgot").

The problem was the stuff went back and forth quite a bit.  Sometimes it
was literally every other take that had the wrong (or nonexistant) filter.
No exposure card, no grey scale, no nothing.  Welcome to big-time TV.

We were able to match everything about 98%, but I have to say, it was much
easier for me to correct when it was shot the way God and Kodak intended it
-- with the appropriate filter.  A few times, though, we had subsequent
takes back-to-back, one with filter, one without, and the client later told
me that cuts within the same scene had zero color differences to them, at
least in the on-line bay.  So I guess for practical purposes, as long as
you've got the range to get there, you can compensate for almost anything.
Having a dozen scratch-pads helps, too.

If a client was asking my personal opinion, though, I'd say "use the right
filter, but if you have to decide between going back and forth, just leave
it all one way and we'll fix it later."  I'd probably prefer no filter at
all times in that situation.

--Marc Wielage / Complete Post
  Hollywood, U.S.A.