Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

skintone

Bruce : Thankyou for your link to the spectral response of camera sensors on the maxmax.com site.
-> I never realised how sensitive a cameras CFA Blue was to colours beyond 780nm.
-> If the CFA Blues are sensitive down to 380nm wavelengths, and super high CRI lights ( http://www.prgtrucolor.com/node/31 ) blue output extinguishes below 430nm ... do you think we loose skin tone detail in the 380nm - 430nm range in artificial light that no LUT can recover?


If available for the comparative test - I would be very interested to see what skin tones look like under LightEmmitingPlasma. The LEP output has Dips at 425nm and 475nm - but there is a real output through the 380nm-780nm visible range. This might even look light daylight to the camera sensor.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-...AAAAAAAMg/AiO8Asgycew/s1600/Spectral-scan.gif


Alexa & Turquoise : If LED lighting generally puts out a low lumen in Turquoise, and their baked in LUT increases the Turquoise component, could it be that our are eyes are more susceptible to a deficiency of this colour than an overdose?


AJ
 
I am loving this thread. It's one of the best of late on reduser.

For the past few pages of posts it seems to be focused on post tools LUTS that can seemingly solve every single problem with the way a camera renders skin tone (although I am not convinced that jus by adding LUTS and tweaking color one is guaranteed great results.

So I guess I'd like to hear more from (the cinematography side) what are you doing to expose the middle greyscale better for better skin rendition and (from the post side) what are the best histogram lighting scenarios you are seeing that are producing great skin tones. It would be nice to see some histogram a alongside the images.

I saw a fantastic digital projection of the film, "The best offer" Geoffery Rush and Donal Sutherland (Alexa studio , red epic master primes) and I have to say it was nice to see a digital drama with lingering shots and beautiful lighting with amazing skintones throughout the whole experience.

Trailer on YouTube does not do the film or the DCP justice but this film is a gem.


http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=0FIBVbBcank&desktop_uri=/watch?v=0FIBVbBcank
 
Pablo Moreno said:
Are you sure?, I just read somewhere that when you apply a print out LUT to your footage, your colors got all messed up on your screen, but they will look just fine on film after print, that's why I assumed that yours weren't, at least most of them, why they look OK on my screen? am I missing something?, my monitor is perfectly calibrated.. and when you say that they are actually simulating the film positive, you mean simulation on the screen monitor?

Edit: aren't the reverse LUTs the ones that they use for print out? :thumbdown:
Click to expand...

Hi Pablo,
The whole point of these types of LUTs is to be able to see on your calibrated monitor what your images will look like when printed to a particular film stock ie Kodak or Fuji. You use them as if they were sunglasses. On your computer monitor you apply the sunglasses or LUT and when you are through you remove the LUT and render your Log DPX files which will then be sent to the lab to be printed to that particular stock. That said often times you want to do a test with the lab of your choice to ensure expected results which often means a custom LUT from the lab but that is in theory how these are supposed to be used. But you can use these LUTs and burn them into the footage for your Rec709 output as well for DVD etc. So, they can be used as a "look" or for the actual purpose of viewing how the images would actually appear on that particular stock for film out.
 
Antony Newman said:
Bruce : Thankyou for your link to the spectral response of camera sensors on the maxmax.com site.
-> I never realised how sensitive a cameras CFA Blue was to colours beyond 780nm.
-> If the CFA Blues are sensitive down to 380nm wavelengths, and super high CRI lights ( http://www.prgtrucolor.com/node/31 ) blue output extinguishes below 430nm ... do you think we loose skin tone detail in the 380nm - 430nm range in artificial light that no LUT can recover?


If available for the comparative test - I would be very interested to see what skin tones look like under LightEmmitingPlasma. The LEP output has Dips at 425nm and 475nm - but there is a real output through the 380nm-780nm visible range. This might even look light daylight to the camera sensor.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-...AAAAAAAMg/AiO8Asgycew/s1600/Spectral-scan.gif


Alexa & Turquoise : If LED lighting generally puts out a low lumen in Turquoise, and their baked in LUT increases the Turquoise component, could it be that our are eyes are more susceptible to a deficiency of this colour than an overdose?


AJ
Click to expand...

Good stuff. So are you two suggesting that a hybrid fixture of remote phosphor and plasma is in order?
 
paulherrin said:
looks beautiful... thanks for sharing. that kodak thing pablo shared was awesome as well. both make me think how much i despise web compression :/ how long must we suffer?
Click to expand...

For as long as people insist on looking at things through web browsers on a highly flawed and limited media delivery system (the Internet), and for as long as it takes to have infinite bandwidth to everyone on the planet.

In other words, for the foreseeable future.
 
mikeburton said:
Hi Pablo,
The whole point of these types of LUTs is to be able to see on your calibrated monitor what your images will look like when printed to a particular film stock ie Kodak or Fuji. You use them as if they were sunglasses. On your computer monitor you apply the sunglasses or LUT and when you are through you remove the LUT and render your Log DPX files which will then be sent to the lab to be printed to that particular stock. That said often times you want to do a test with the lab of your choice to ensure expected results which often means a custom LUT from the lab but that is in theory how these are supposed to be used. But you can use these LUTs and burn them into the footage for your Rec709 output as well for DVD etc. So, they can be used as a "look" or for the actual purpose of viewing how the images would actually appear on that particular stock for film out.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mike, I had no idea about the film post processing, except for what I read on the Internet. So we are using them as a look, well, it happens to work like a charm..
 
M Most said:
For as long as people insist on looking at things through web browsers on a highly flawed and limited media delivery system (the Internet), and for as long as it takes to have infinite bandwidth to everyone on the planet.

In other words, for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...


and what a drag that is.

Here in Florence Italy the Tuscan film Commission takes care of a great cinema in the city center. The projectionists are top notch and whether its film or a 2k dcp through the Christie projector, it's always worth every cent to watch films as they are intended to be seen.

projected on large screens through calibrated devices so that the we can see them at their best.


David
 
Looks good.
 
If the DoP should attend the Grade (which I completely agree) should the Colourist spend some time on location ?
 
I think that the DOP is photgraphing the collective work of many departments so it makes sense thàt he/she is there to represent that work when the final grades are being done. I'm not sure the colorist being on set is as important (plus the dynamics are much different than post) so I'd have to say its less nessesary unless the production departments are using the colorist as part of camera tests etc but the DOP should decide on that dynamic. But remember that art directors, production designers are the discerning eyes for color and tone. The DOP light and photograph that vision. David.
 
I agree, and in some circumstances that might be the right answer, but given grading tools are now very powerful and theres a bigger overlap between image processing in camera including filtration and colour processing in post. The more a DoP has first hand knowledge of the tools then the better chance he/she has of achieving a desired look that the Director wishes to achieve. As there so much more achievable options are getting more complex so getting better specialist input at the start of a project in tests from the Colourist may be a good move. I don't know if this happens in other areas of the planet from there I am but it seldom seems to happen here.
 
I been doing post for almost 19 years and I meet all kinds of DoP's. Young upcoming guys to the most experienced old-timers.

The pattern is pretty clear. Offcourse the young guys are usually very stubborn and want things to go their way. With experience comes the understanding of other peoples knowledge I guess.

Form the post side of things I beliave the tell tail signs for a good succsessfull DoP is the following:
1. Join in on the grading session. But the task is not to take control of the grade, there is a very slim chance that you know how to make the most out of the material. Explain your vision and let the colorist do his job. The importance of attending the grading session is primarily for you to see how far the picture holds up, get to see the limitations up close and learn from the material you shot. That is far more important then trying to backseat drive the colorist guy. DP's that have this mind set goes far. DP's that are to stubborn and want to grab the color balls them selves usually do not go so far.... DP's that thinks that just doing some ref frames in photoshop and then they are off to the next job.... well it usually takes alot longer for them to get their first big hollywood feature.

2. Sit in on the VFX work. The very few DP's that do so on every job they do usually tend to get to hollywood in less than 1/4 of the time than the guys that do not do so. Just sit in, do not try to learn the programs etc. Learn about what's possible what is not, what can be shot i dual passes, what can not, what is the issues with green screen, what is not, how does 3D tracking work what can it be used for. This is things you can read about but that is far from going though the stuff in real life on your own project. DP's that sits in on the VFX sessions learn to see imagery as something bigger than just exposed frames. They learn whats important for lighting, set design and overall they learn how more epic shots can be made with less effort. The advantages from this knowledge shines trough their showreels and the bigger jobs comes much, much quicker.

Today when there is internet you do not really have to sit in, the people we work with usually hook up trough a skype feed. So if you can not attend the work get in contact with the vfx guys and connect to their computers through the web and follow the work on a daily basis. Of course a hands on experience is better but maybe not practical. Then internet is the solution.

So just to explain, I probably worked with over 100 DP's trough the years, the once's that had great interest for post all have at least a house in LA by now, or shoot major shows somewhere else. It might be that they are more curious in general but there is not one single DP that I worked with that did not care about the post work that got any king of mentionable carrier outside this country... Think thats says a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top