Calling ALL Colorist...

[Lou Cann]

I can't think of a better place to ask this question so please help:

I am a person who loves film making as a "Hobby". I have also graded about 1/2 dozen short films.
Most of them have been in film festivals in NYC. Every single one of them have the same EXACT look on screen.

Muddy looking ...dark....no contrast...low saturation, Blurry ...HORRIBLE on the big Screen.
When viewed on my 24" monitor, 42 "HD TV, It look REALLY NICE. Bright, vivid, punchy, sharp

Now, I would normally say "well it's the theater's screen & set up" However, all 5 films that night were perfect, broadcast quality. Some were even Razor sharp vivid MOTION PICTURE quality.

So I ask you....What in GODS name am I doing wrong?
Here are some factors that might help you asset my abortion GRADING PROJECT:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source footage: shot on 35mil, scanned to quicktime proRes 10bit
Overall look of source was grainny & flat looking.

Color graded on Da vinci resolve
Degrained with Neat Video

Output to Blu-ray H264

Thank You,
Lou

 

[mikeburton]

Hi Lou,

There are several factors that could be the problem. Without knowing all the details if the theatres are projecting in P3 and you are grading in 709 there would be a pretty major difference in your images appearing darker. Did you test your Blu-Ray before projecting to ensure the correct appearance?

 

[Christopher Adams]

Maybe show us a frame of it with parade scopes and such? We can see what it looks like? What are toy grading in? Which color space etc.
CJ Adams

I can't think of a better place to ask this question so please help:

I am a person who loves film making as a "Hobby". I have also graded about 1/2 dozen short films.
Most of them have been in film festivals in NYC. Every single one of them have the same EXACT look on screen.

Muddy looking ...dark....no contrast...low saturation, Blurry ...HORRIBLE on the big Screen.
When viewed on my 24" monitor, 42 "HD TV, It look REALLY NICE. Bright, vivid, punchy, sharp

Now, I would normally say "well it's the theater's screen & set up" However, all 5 films that night were perfect, broadcast quality. Some were even Razor sharp vivid MOTION PICTURE quality.

So I ask you....What in GODS name am I doing wrong?
Here are some factors that might help you asset my abortion GRADING PROJECT:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source footage: shot on 35mil, scanned to quicktime proRes 10bit
Overall look of source was grainny & flat looking.

Color graded on Da vinci resolve
Degrained with Neat Video

Output to Blu-ray H264

Thank You,
Lou

 

[Tom.Wong]

usually festivals set their projectors to 709 opposed to p3, because pretty much nobody in the indie low budget bracket can afford to have their piece properly colored in p3 space. so being in 709 should be fine, I've done a lot that was graded in 709 and looked fine at festivals. However, it could just be a bad projection on their part, or incredibly inaccurate reference on your end. what's your primary grading monitor? if you are just using a computer lcd screen without a properly calibrated 709 monitor with a sdi feed from a decklink, than that might be your #1 problem right there. as for it looking fine on your hdtv, that may not be calibrated properly either, as most consumer panels don't even come close to being able to be provide the accuracy of a proper 709 monitor, most can't even be calibrated to it.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I think Tom above is getting closer to the real answer. The reality is that unless you know that what you're seeing on the grading monitor is telling you the truth, all bets are off by the time it hits theaters.

What kind of monitor are you using? How was it calibrated? What color space are you using? What color space is the material being projected in?

These are all questions a good post supervisor can help you with. My other suggestion is that this is why hiring an experienced colorist is a necessary part of filmmaking. It's no different than hiring a good editor, a good sound mixer, or a good cinematographer. As a friend of mine loves to say, "it takes years of experience to get years of experience." Color-correction is an artistic skill that doesn't happen overnight, but it also hinges on being able to trust what you see, and have accurate scopes and other tools that will help predict how it will look elsewhere.

I've been involved in indie festival screenings where we brought an HD-Cam tape, a Digibeta tape, and a DVD as a backup, assuming the HD would work. The festival people were so disorganized, they wound up using the DVD, because that's what they were using for most the other films. Amazingly, even in SD, the film held up fine and still wound up winning a couple of awards. Go figure.

 

[Frank Cueto]

Unfortunately, if your monitor hasn't been "Properly" calibrated, you are grading the stuff to look its best in *YOUR* monitor.

I would HIGHLY recommend the cinespace/cinetal/THX color course (2 days) and their tools for someone starting out. I know I enjoyed it

 

[Lou Cann]

Thanks Guys for ALL of your replies. It mean so much to me.
Ok, I will get you guys all the answers to you questions ASAP. Unfortunately, I am away for Thanksgiving and wont be back home untill
Monday. Here are some more facts:

1. Monitor is HP 2408. Bought 4 years ago @ 696.00
2. I Calibrate using as many Charts I can find on the web.
Making sure I can see ALL black levels (0, 1, 2,3 etc)
Making sure I see ALL Luma Levels, (255, 254, 253 etc)

I never change color space on any systems. I just bring in the footage & start Grading.
Again, so far, the footages have been:
Canon XHA1
Canon 5D
and this last one was shot 35 mil to QT pro res

RGB PARADE

I usually have to max out the parade. Blacks are crushed & whites are over the 100 line.

NOTE: I try to make these images as bright as I can (to see how much I ca n push it)
And it "seems" that I push it to the max all the time. Meaning, I can't go too much further without blowing out the whites, or crushing the blacks to were ALL detail is lost.


And no, I did not test it before. We got to the festival 10 mins before it started. I run up to the projectionist and gave him the Blu-Ray copy. (thinking.....a blu-ray will look so much better than the DVD) Boy was I wrong.

The filmakers I have been helping are all upset with the screenings. They all say the same thing..."Why did my film look so shitty"? I am so discouraged at this point, and I am searching for answers.

The part that REALLY bothers me is I've seen some films that where shot by 2 idots with a Canon HDV20 camera. They had NO knownledge of fimmaking or grading AND IT STILL LOOKED BETTER THAN MINE!


When I get home, I will post images of all my shots. I will also post "What" it looked like at home, and "what" it looked like at the theater.

So please check back next week
Thank You,
Lou

 

[M Most]

1. Monitor is HP 2408. Bought 4 years ago @ 696.00
2. I Calibrate using as many Charts I can find on the web.
Making sure I can see ALL black levels (0, 1, 2,3 etc)
Making sure I see ALL Luma Levels, (255, 254, 253 etc)

I never change color space on any systems. I just bring in the footage & start Grading.

So, in other words, you guessed. And it sounds like you guessed without having any professional help or consultation.

I hate to guise it this way, but just about every guess you made was wrong. I don't know why you did what you did, or why you thought it would work, but essentially you invented your own monitor setup and somehow expected that to work. There isn't anything I can say that will fix what you did other than to say that next time, you might want to consult someone who knows how to properly calibrate a monitor to a known standard (and can suggest a monitor that's appropriate for your use) before you put a lot of work into something that will only look right on the monitor you graded it on. Or, at the very least, do some research into proper monitor setup. We live in the Internet age. There are tons of resources you can use to find out how to properly set up a monitor, and why color spaces can't just be ignored.

There's nothing wrong with a do it yourself approach. There's a lot wrong with an invent it yourself approach.

 

[Mike P.]

Of everyone in this thread you best listen to Mike Most (no, not me... Listen to "M Most" most).

I've fallen into the same trap as you, where grades between displays never matched. Granted the results didn't look bad, they just had undesired contrast and brightness levels. (speaking of which, Contrast has a lot to do with the preceived sharpness of your image, so if it was looking more muddy/soft projected, it's probably because of that... Or the BDrom encoding being crappy.)

Without changing your hardware I would think the easiest way to get a little consistency would be to view (and grade) in 709, since that's a standard that most (all?) consumer displays support/use. That's not the "correct" way, but *I think* it'd be the easiest. Also note that even mid-range computer monitors are better than a lot of higher-end TVs in blacks and highs, which skewers results when going from even just a decent highres comp screen to a "higher-end" consumer HDTV.

It's crazy, I know, but proper colour correction/grading is really finicky, which is why pros use such expensive gear and work in "suites" that have controlled lighting and so forth. Conversely that's also why they can charge the big bucks. First step is to get your bluray and see if it looks like crap on the computer monitor you graded on... That'll help clear up where exactly the problem is.

Worst case scenario, when you talk to the director of your next project claim that Black&White is the cat's PJs and will make him look like a real artist.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I'm not a Colorist, but if I may...

Of everyone in this thread you best listen to Mike Most (no, not me... Listen to "M Most" most).

True. You have access to a great asset there. Don't squander it.

Without changing your hardware I would think the easiest way to get a little consistency would be to view (and grade) in 709, since that's a standard that most (all?) consumer displays support/use. That's not the "correct" way, but *I think* it'd be the easiest.

That isn't going to help at all if his grading monitor isn't calibrated to a display standard.

Knowing how to use scopes can get you a large part of the way in a flawed monitoring environment, but only if you use them religiously and your material is all color neutral. But that still won't get you to a proper finish. One caveat here is if you don't know how to properly calibrate a monitor you are likely lacking the prerequisite knowledge to use the scopes properly too. Sorry to make the assumption, but it's a conservative bet.

Also, achieving proper color at festivals (Particularly smaller festivals) can be tricky. In my limited festival experience I have seen some projectionists "calibrate" the screening projector to present material in a way that is most flattering to the lowest common denominator. In that scenario if you are the most accurate film, but the minority, your film will not look right. It shouldn't look too terribly bad since the "calibration" is an average of shit and not the epitome of shit, but it won't look as intended.

It's crazy, I know, but proper colour correction/grading is really finicky, which is why pros use such expensive gear and work in "suites" that have controlled lighting and so forth. Conversely that's also why they can charge the big bucks.

Fallacy. While the cost of the gear factors into the amount charged for the service, it is not the reason these people get "The big bucks." if the OP had the same gear as M Most he still wouldn't be able to command the same bucks because he doesn't yet know how to set it up, use or maintain it properly.

I'm no Mod, but I think this belongs elsewhere. This is not Red specific.

 

[axel ebermann]

Well, a good grade it well is definitely the starting point.

Unfortunately, especially with festivals, that is not a guarantee for a decent screening though. Only the big festivals really seem
to care what their screenings look like and spend money on good projectors and people who actually know how to handle them.

I had films in a bunch of festivals where they literally just shut off the projector while the end credits are rolling. With a full
house and hundreds of people watching.
I was so furious I gave them an earful. But I could tell they did not really understand why I was so pissed.
And they treat the quality of the projection / grade the same way.

The conundrum for the filmmaker is: Are you going to withhold a film from a festival screening, because you know it is going to look bad ?


My personal approach has been trying to slowly kick them into the right direction: Everytime I send a copy to a Film Festival I will talk to them
about projection, possible upgrades that are affordable etc.
Just to show them that we actually care what our films look like on the screen.

 

[Tom.Wong]

Lou, all that's left that can be said that is still constructive.

A. your system is broken, don't take offense to it, but it's true. what you are doing isn't giving you proper 709 signal. There are panels that are build up to hardware spec to provide this signal for you. for a computer LCD to be able to even come close it requires vigorous calibration. Most of the time if the LCD isn't even up to spec ( 10 bit, full range color gamut, no kelvin shifts for a true white point, decent black levels) you can't even come close to using the internal tools on the monitor to calibrate. people spend a lot of money having people coming in with calibration tools just to built a look up table to paint box the monitor with a external unit that has to be hooked up at all times to make sure the signal is accurate. and still, if the panel isn't up to snuff, it will NEVER be able to hit that mark, and is unusable for a critical grading environment.



B. you don't need the most expensive tools to get any of this done, you need the RIGHT tools. none of which you have, there are a variety of color correction resources out there about color correction you can buy and read about, that may enlighten you on a lot of things you have questions about. It takes a good long while of experience, skill set and knowledge to know how to use all these tools properly.

C. these standards are in place for a purpose. 709 is a gamma curve developed as a standard for broadcast. we abide by it so that everybody fits in this standard so that when delivery comes, and it airs wherever, it's as close to the master as possible. if a projector is set to 709, even in a bad project, it will be as close as it physically can be because you abide by those standards. same with broadcast, the person at home may have a crap tv, but at least your standards fit in that limited range so it doesn't look like a completely unusable image.


these are really kind of 101 things for a colorist, but it's a lot of moving parts, and even if you prefer to do the color yourself because of your own taste, skill set, aesthetic, or whatever, I would seek proper consultation on your setup before you dive into the next one.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I usually have to max out the parade. Blacks are crushed & whites are over the 100 line.

That is incorrect. In fact, its an explanation of what you should not do.

For most projects you should make sure all your black details are above 0 IRE and all your highlight detail is under 100 IRE on the parade scopes.

By definition, anything you put below 0IRE is "superblack" and has no detail - although your monitoring set up may show such detail. Anything above 100IRE is "superwhite" and therefore should have no detail.

You know ... exactly what you describe as the problem.

Now, a colorist who knows what they are doing might put things over 100 or under 0 - but they can break that rule because they know what they are doing.

 

[Mike P.]

That isn't going to help at all if his grading monitor isn't calibrated to a display standard.

I was implying that his entire pipeline (monitor included) be calibrated to rec709 (or at least lean towards a rec709 rendition), since it's probably the most widely supported by default (assuming calibration of the festival's hardware usually isn't possible).

Fallacy. While the cost of the gear factors into the amount charged for the service, it is not the reason these people get "The big bucks." if the OP had the same gear as M Most he still wouldn't be able to command the same bucks because he doesn't yet know how to set it up, use or maintain it properly.

Apologies for not being clear; what I meant was, because it's "finicky" it's difficult to learn without hours of experience or learning directly from someone 'in the know'. That's why they can charge the big bucks -- because you can't just read a book or study documentation and expect to be a professional colourist (although it is a good start). That's also why pros use pro gear: because when you're at that level proper hardware calibration and grading environment directly affect productivity and quality.

I'm no Mod, but I think this belongs elsewhere. This is not Red specific.

No it's not RED specific, but being that RED is the posterboy for RAW, and RAW opens tons of doors from a colour/grade perspective, it's a pretty good place to ask. Are there any other really awesome CC and Grading forums around?

OP, check the blu-ray first and report back. From the sounds of it, if you post a screen grab, it'll probably look like crap on our displays (even if they're just regular monitors.) Either that or it was a less-than-ideal blu-ray encoding.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Apologies for not being clear; what I meant was, because it's "finicky" it's difficult to learn without hours of experience or learning directly from someone 'in the know'. That's why they can charge the big bucks -- because you can't just read a book or study documentation and expect to be a professional colourist (although it is a good start). That's also why pros use pro gear: because when you're at that level proper hardware calibration and grading environment directly affect productivity and quality.

I'd be interested to hear Mike or Jake's take on that. No doubt it does take a lot of training to become a proficient Colorist and artist, but much of the science and technology behind it can be learned from the independent study of books and technical manuals.

 

[M Most]

I'd be interested to hear Mike or Jake's take on that. No doubt it does take a lot of training to become a proficient Colorist and artist, but much of the science and technology behind it can be learned from the independent study of books and technical manuals.

That's probably true, but science and technology are probably the least important parts of the job and definitely the simplest to grasp. What isn't so simple is how to mix colors in interesting ways, how to help the cameraman with things he or she didn't have either the time or equipment to create during production, how to interpret an image with consideration for the story and helping to tell that story, how to help to direct the viewer's attention to the critical elements of the frame, how to help to enhance the images in ways consistent with the creators' vision, and how to work with clients, which is perhaps the most difficult requirement of all to either learn or master. Especially in a job when the clients can be anyone from a post coordinator to a producer to a director to a writer to a cinematographer. And every job in between.

All of that, plus being aware and staying aware of all of the different cameras and formats and how to best handle them (and they're all a bit different, and seem to change weekly), all of the different displays used and how best to prep for them, and all of the different deliverables and the venues they are used in and how best to present them. And, last but most definitely not least in the real world, doing the job and bringing all of this to the table quickly and efficiently. Except for the very first sentence of this post, I really don't think you can get much of this stuff from a book or a technical manual. As for using pro gear, that's mostly about trusting what it is you're seeing (hence the need for a proper viewing environment, proper calibrated display, and proper scopes) and being able to do your job efficiently, without having to go through many layers of menus, pointing to specific spots on a GUI with a mouse, or pushing 5 buttons (hence the need for a proper control surface).

 

[Mike P.]

I'd be interested to hear Mike or Jake's take on that. No doubt it does take a lot of training to become a proficient Colorist and artist, but much of the science and technology behind it can be learned from the independent study of books and technical manuals.

Good point. I mean, there's obviously a lot more artistry involved with colour grading than with colour correction (which could, and maybe should, be done by the numbers). Admittedly, when I think of "by the books" type grading I think of things like Magic Bullet Looks; they don't look too bad, per se, but there is definitely a certain manufactured-ness to them.

@Most; I've heard that digital/software-based scopes (in Color or Symphony or anything) are never as good as standalone, physical hardware scopes. In your opinion is that true? If so, why are the digis so much worse?

 

[Lou Cann]

Hello Guys ,
Again, THANK YOU SO MUCh for your input.
Most of you are really trying to help me, however, MIKE MOST seems to want to kick me when I'm down.
Ok, I get it. I don't know what I'm doing. But. I am trying. I did NOT just sit in front of a PC and start spinning knobs on a grading system.
I have read every book out there INCLUDING a book that interviewed MIKE MOST. I tried to follow all of his advice.
If I am doing it wrong its only because I don't understand enough, NOT THAT I HAVEN"T DONE RESEARCH.

Remember, I am doing this as a HOBBY. I enjoy film making. I am NOT charging anyone. I just want to learn & UNDERSTAND more.

Since I mostly have worked with XHA1 footage, or 5D footage. I "ASSUMED" that the color space didn't apply to those sources.
Only when using 10 bit or 12 bit film scans, would color space be a MAJOR FACTOR.

I guess I was wrong.

Also I don't have money to invest in better Calibration hardware.
This has been my work flow...BASED ON MIKE MOST BOOK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Load footage
Examine my scopes.
Try to white balance or neutralize it.
Go right for the black & white points.
Keep darkest black levels to 0 IRE
Push Whites to no higher than 100 IRE (alhough I sometimes go over as long as I don't see anything blown out)
Once I have an image I like, I degrain it (if needed)
Export as quictime uncompressed

 

[Tom.Wong]

Hello Guys ,
Again, THANK YOU SO MUCh for your input.
Most of you are really trying to help me, however, MIKE MOST seems to want to kick me when I'm down.
Ok, I get it. I don't know what I'm doing. But. I am trying. I did NOT just sit in front of a PC and start spinning knobs on a grading system.
I have read every book out there INCLUDING a book that interviewed MIKE MOST. I tried to follow all of his advice.
If I am doing it wrong its only because I don't understand enough, NOT THAT I HAVEN"T DONE RESEARCH.

Remember, I am doing this as a HOBBY. I enjoy film making. I am NOT charging anyone. I just want to learn & UNDERSTAND more.

Since I mostly have worked with XHA1 footage, or 5D footage. I "ASSUMED" that the color space didn't apply to those sources.
Only when using 10 bit or 12 bit film scans, would color space be a MAJOR FACTOR.

I guess I was wrong.

Also I don't have money to invest in better Calibration hardware.
This has been my work flow...BASED ON MIKE MOST BOOK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Load footage
Examine my scopes.
Try to white balance or neutralize it.
Go right for the black & white points.
Keep darkest black levels to 0 IRE
Push Whites to no higher than 100 IRE (alhough I sometimes go over as long as I don't see anything blown out)
Once I have an image I like, I degrain it (if needed)
Export as quictime uncompressed

a lot of us can come off as rough around the edges when trying to be as eloquent as possible on a forum, so just pick out what you can use, and ignore the rest. when coloring someone's work and trying to have it displayed in front of a audience wanting it to look as best as it can, and it not coming out that way is a bane a great deal of us have had to deal with over the years, so I feel your pain. but just food for thought, it's past being a hobby when it's pushed to the level where it's making you and other people look bad, and the advise is to help you get past that, and get the best work out there possible. so cheers, and good luck, and hopefully you get everything you need to get together to avoid this again.

 

[M Most]

Most of you are really trying to help me, however, MIKE MOST seems to want to kick me when I'm down.

No, I'm not. I'm trying to give you some advice so you'll know to ask questions next time and not make assumptions.

Remember, I am doing this as a HOBBY. I enjoy film making. I am NOT charging anyone. I just want to learn & UNDERSTAND more.

It probably would have been a good idea to state that in the first post. But I would also say that if you're turning over footage to festivals for filmmakers who are essentially "clients," you are no longer doing it as a hobby. You are doing it at the very least as a collaborator and at the very most as a vendor. Either way, you're acting in a professional capacity. Once you agree to do that, it's no longer just yourself who you are serving and potentially either helping or hurting. It's those you're working with. You owe it to them to make absolutely sure that what you're doing is correct, even if it isn't up to high end facility standards. By not asking questions, and assuming that you could directly interpret what a book was telling you, you cut yourself off from a better understanding of the subject that might have sent you in the right direction rather than the wrong one. That's not "kicking you" so much as it is an attempt to bring you to a professional level, even if you see it as a hobby. We all go through tough love on occasion. I've gone through it countless times. That's part of how you learn.

This has been my work flow...BASED ON MIKE MOST BOOK.

I never wrote a book. Steve Hullfish did, and he solicited advice and quotes from a number of people, including myself. Any advice you get from books, instructors, or white papers is always meant as a general guideline, not a step by step guide to be followed exactly. It is one person's process, and it's never the entire process because that changes all the time.

Not having money or the ability to use proper equipment or achieve proper calibration is acceptable if what you're doing is just for yourself and doesn't impact anyone else. That doesn't seem to have been the case here. If you can't do something correctly, you have to be extra careful to test things out and at least have some confidence that what you're doing for others is going to satisfy their needs and their expectations. If you can't do that, you shouldn't accept the job and the responsibility, regardless of whether you're getting paid or not. It's as simple as that. I do wish you luck in the future, and I hope that if you do this sort of thing again that you take the time and effort to ask questions about anything you're not absolutely sure of rather than make assumptions about things you may not really understand.