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

Re: telecine-announce Digest V97 #32

>Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 20:25:15 -0500
>To: Tim Bond <bond007 at concentric.net>
>From: Craig Leffel <acleffel at mindspring.com>
>Subject: Re: telecine-announce Digest V97 #32
>At 08:35 PM 6/12/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>I find it strange that in our environment of color manipulation, which is 
>>curiously devoid of baseline references and standardization between 
>This was exactly the point Tim. I don't think there should be any
>To try and do so is analagous to the old "apples and oranges" arguement.
The 2 are not the same nor will they ever be. To try and tell a DP that when
considering the electronic representation of his film he should think about
what is correct for 25 across in a print at the lab seems wrong to me. This
compounds itself when you think about how ND's, gels, grads, and polas need
to be udsed in different strengths depending 
>on what the ultimatte representation medium will be; theatre or TV? 
>>How many times does it occur that a client asks you to show him what 
>>"normal" is, and the closest expression that you can show him (for that 
>>particular scene) is your interpretation.  Certainly, it may be a 
>>pleasing mix - as well as without crushing the blacks or blowing the 
>>whites, but "what is normal?".  At least for a DP, this can be an 
>>important starting point.    Kodak's description of normal (25,25,25) may 
>>not hold true for every lab, but it does nonetheless establish a 
>>meaningful starting point from which users could, for instance, derive 
>>reference sets that reflect the set-ups of particular labs.  In our case, 
>>here at Du Art , we enjoy the unique advantage of a close relationship 
>>with our in-house lab, and are working towards just that.
>I usually explain what my base settings are and go from there. I don't even
try to assume a "normal" because there isn't one. I can say what the
exposure is based on my experience and my preference, but as to what is
normal; I don't believe there is any such thing. I know that may sound
extreme - but "normal" is undefineable. What the clients mean is
"unaffected" or "What's the exposure" but these are very different questions
and they relate specifically to what happens to a piece of film during the
translation to video
>>Such generalizations wane in the face a well thought out and executed 
>>system, such as TEC.  Particuarly, for Colorist's without production 
>>experience and the ability to express image quality in f-stops (or 
>>t-stops), this is a welcome tool.
>Whils some colorists may not be able to talk in f-stops from shooting
experience, most of the ones I know quickly adapt to the thought of stops
and can express themselves pretty accurately. The real reason I think this
whole thing was pursued is due to the general fact that facilities don't put
their primary colorists on dailies. Unfortunately, this is the stage where
DP's make their money and I know that more than one has been burned. My only
concern is that there must be a better way to get DP's involved in the
process than to tell them - "Yep, it's 1 stop over just like I said, and I
can prove it with this here chart!/numbers"
>>This kind of research by Kodak, as well as a huge effort in the graphics 
>>production world to resolve color differences between mediums (via 
>>underlying mathmatical expression) leads me to believe (Oh boy, here I 
>>jump into the lake of fire. . .) that it is inevitable that the process 
>>of real-time color space translation between mediums in the film to video 
>>world will one day become practical, resulting in an automatic initial 
>>transfer similar in ease to the the automatic photo printing process.  
>>Fear not though, our lives may still have purpose . . . requiring our 
>>skill to effect the Vision (imagine italics) of our clients upon the 
>>final product.
>I think this is already happening in the sense that Kodak (4000x4000)
scanning technology looks at Dmax and Dmin and "captures" the entire image.
It also removes base color and therefore can give you an accurate depiction
of what is "on the neg". I agree completely with you that there will always
be something for us colorists to do. We are the keepers of the vision. At
best we take a number of different people's visions and bring them to life
(no matter what the original medium)  Hopefully, further than what they
initially imagined. Since I believe we are "interpreters", and I believe
that few rules hold us back, (save for the color space police), We need to
encourage DP's to embrace the process of telecine and the marriage of film
to video; not coddle them in a blanket wrought with confusion.
>Yours in twisting,

** thanks to Rich Garibaldi for contributing to the TIG in 1997
mailinglist digest available......posting guidelines on the webpage