[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: telecine-announce Digest V97 #32
- To: telecine at sun.alegria.com
- Subject: Re: telecine-announce Digest V97 #32
- From: Craig Leffel <acleffel at mindspring.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 22:44:42 -0500
- Old-Return-Path: <acleffel at mindspring.com>
- Resent-From: telecine at sun.alegria.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <"dKA00B.A.oQC.hBinz" at sun>
- Resent-Sender: telecine-request at sun.alegria.com
- Resent-To: multiple recipients of <telecine at sun.alegria.com>
At 05:00 AM 6/10/97 -0700, you wrote:
>telecine-announce Digest Volume 97 : Issue 32
> TKG [ Paul Sutton <106005.677 at compuserve. ]
>....The thinking behind it is to give DPs some feedback on their exposure
>levels, as they used to get from the lab with their daily prints. <del>
>>In the Kodak kit is a new test film, which you use to calibrate the PECs
>(or the output of other manufacturers' telecines) to the TKG. Once set,
>every time you see the grey card you press a button, and TKG calculates the
>exposure levels in red, green and blue. This is presented, via a simple
>Windows-type program, in printer points.... <DEL>
.....alongside an accurate report of the exposure and
>colour balance as shot.
Let's assume for a moment that getting numbers from a dailies transfer that
try to apporximate a completely different process is a good idea...
Most DP's I talk to say every lab is different. They seem to have 2 choices;
calibrate the way they shoot to a certain lab, OR accept slightly different
points at each lab.
You didn't directly say so, but Kodak (you mentioned them) seems to hold
firm that 25 across is a good neg (normal). I disagree with that as a
colorist. I still believe that slight overexposure is a good thing for
telecine transfer. So already I've taken it to 30 across just as my base
philosophy. To stand behind the idea that linking an electronic process
measured in ire to a physical process measured in physical density seems
funny to me. I think it merely muddys the waters for already confused DP's.
I realize they want to hold on to something they know that is well worn, but
one must ask "When is it time to learn something new?" I applaud Rank's
efforts to try and bridge the communication gap (Kodak too), But I don't
see much difference here. The only knowledge I've gotten from my Kodak demo
or my TKG demo was that I can now (with these systems) tell a DP exactly
where their exposure is revelant to someone else's idea of what "normal" is.
We've all been telling shooters for years "this is 1 stop over/under, a 1/4
down, 2 stops over, 5 stops over, blah, blah, blah". All I have now with the
new "systems" is a chart or a numeric output that says the same thing. Thank
you Rank for giving the colorist a definitive voice, but paying for
something I already know seems strange.... convince me Paul....
C-reality on the other hand, is an incredible idea that I can't wait for........
** thanks to Alan Thatcher and Grace & Wild Studios for
contributing to the TIG in 1997
mailinglist digest available......posting guidelines on the webpage