Ask Mike Most Anything

[M Most]

Regarding Baselight, again...usability of the feature depends on the implementation of the feature, not just the feature itself. Zooming in on the portion of the curve can be counter productive due to: ....

You need to look at Baselight before making these kind of comments. The curve is presented in a "full size" display, and next to it is a "magnified" view of the currently selected curve point. In other words, it's already exactly what you're describing.

Regarding "single parameter", depends on what is the priority. For example, affecting local contrast by shaping a gamma curve can also be more productive or creative in some cases. If used properly and within its limitations. What curves also do is offer intuitive and informative visual feedback about picture alterations, which may help freeing visual memory and mental processes, compared to trackballs, knobs and numerical values. This is generally speaking of course, and excluding individual preferences and developed habits.

I was asked if I, or other experienced colorists, generally use curves. My answer was and is no, regardless of the reasons that those who do use them make that choice.

Overlaying curves (and qualifiers for that matter) on top of scopes would be a major step up in many factors.

Assimilate Scratch allows that, at least on top of a histogram. Personally, I always found it more visually confusing than helpful.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

You need to look at Baselight before making these kind of comments. The curve is presented in a "full size" display, and next to it is a "magnified" view of the currently selected curve point. In other words, it's already exactly what you're describing.

Yes, I did look at its curves implementation. Original "full size" display is too small for subtle corrections, and expanded view brings the drawbacks I mentioned. One limitation attempting to be solved with another.

I was asked if I, or other experienced colorists, generally use curves. My answer was and is no, regardless of the reasons that those who do use them make that choice.

Understood. Don't see the issue.
When discussing that topic it helps mentioning other aspects which may cause this. Especially if there is room for improvement of the tools.

Assimilate Scratch allows that, at least on top of a histogram. Personally, I always found it more visually confusing than helpful.

I was talking about full size scopes, as in one fourth of the screen each. The option in which curves wouldn't have to be squeezed into a tiny portion of a UI and would allow proper image modification, while checking the detailed signal. While expanding options and clearing out the UI on the main screen.

Scratch UI's spreadsheet approach to a tool made for tweaking visual aesthetic in its grading part of the app is debatable anyway.
Not debating your experience and standpoint.

 

[Marc Wielage]

BTW, just in the name of accuracy, Lustre is currently sold only as part of Flame Premium. Smoke is no longer a part of Flame Premium, although the Smoke timeline, conform toolset, and a number of its features remain as part of the Flame product. Smoke currently exists only as a standalone product on the Mac, and Lustre is not and never has been a part of that product. Also, I believe existing licenses of Lustre on Windows are still supported, but new licenses are not available.

It was hard to tell -- Autodesk kind of buries Lustre on their website, and it's hard to locate it. I finally found it here under Flame Premium:

http://docs.autodesk.com/flamepremium-grading2013/

What's sad to me is I remember 6 or 7 years ago they came out with a second-generation Lustre control surface that was beautiful. I'm not sure if it ever even shipped. I suspect Autodesk makes so much money with AutoCAD, video post is maybe 2% of their total profits, to the point where it's barely there.

I agree with you about custom curves. In truth, the only time I ever used them was when I got a chemically-damaged film element (like 1950s era Deluxe color IPs) that were hopelessly skewed in certain layers. I could tame it by about half in curves, and then the other half with multiple power windows... but it wasn't easy. I'd be reluctant today to use curves unless the client wanted a really whacked-out look... which is not that infrequent, actually.

I never warmed up to Digital Vision, but I know it has its fans all over town, and there's some very fine shows (like the ones being done by KeepMePosted) that look great. With daVinci Resolve 10 about to come out, I'm not sure how much longer the other systems are going to survive. In particular, the two-edged sword of on-set color and post-production color is a killer combination, particularly at the price daVinci is pushing. It looks to me like they're going after the whole MTI/Colorfront/LiveGrade area, which could cause a lot of ramifications.

So for me, I always prefer interpreting Red files using RedlogFilm because I feel you generally get a better result with log grading with respect to recreating the original photography and the original captured colors with better separation and fidelity.

I just did a test recently using RedColor3 in Resolve 9, and was floored at how terrific the image looked right out of the box. This was all for Rec709 grading, but I was pleased at how naturally it looked. Red has kept up very well in color science, as of this year. Alexis Von Hurkmann's explanation of how all the RedColor, RedGamma, and RedLogFilm settings work, in the daVinci Resolve manual, are extremely thorough and well thought out. And he basically says, "hey, they all work a little differently... try them all with your project and see how they look with the original photography."

 

[shashbugu]

You know Mike, Marc et al always rant about the early days of color grading, telecine etc, You guys should really write a history book or something as most of us on here (I should say then majority of us on here) don't care too much about that über expensive period in film history when we couldn't get our dreams out simply because of "money". Thanks to companies like Red, Black, Apple, and Adobe, the art of filmmaking is now open to the masses and everyone can go out grab a camera, tell stories, shoot, edit, color grade, score, foley, and print, publish, promote, distribute all within two weeks. Thank God. Today there are young talented filmmakers creating amazing revolutionary films most of whom don't even know what monitor calibration is. That world of broadcast standards is dying faster than polar ice caps are melting. Even the BBC is lowering their standards to iPhone footage. Resolution, dynamic range, color fidelity, 3D, compression are all so early 2000's it's funny when so called seasoned filmmakers wait to get the next big thing. You'll wait forever as a big thing comes out every month. You can make movies or you can make excuses but you can't do both. There's nothing to stop you today. Hello Kickstarter

 

[M Most]

You know Mike, Marc et al always rant about the early days of color grading, telecine etc, You guys should really write a history book or something as most of us on here (I should say then majority of us on here) don't care too much about that über expensive period in film history when we couldn't get our dreams out simply because of "money".

If you don't like my answers, don't ask me questions. This thread is called "Ask Mike Most Anything," not "Insult Mike Most For Having Experience And An Opinion."

Besides, where exactly did I "rant about the early days?" Comparing devices like Resolve, Baselight, Lustre, and others is not exactly trodding the path of ancient history. I was asked some questions and I answered them with a bit of perspective because I thought it was interesting. In fact, I went out of my way to state that I didn't want to go back to things that ARE pretty dated, or perhaps you didn't notice that. You don't have to read what I wrote and you don't have to comment on it. I hope your and "your dreams" can make you a decent living, but in the world you seem to like that's going to be a daunting task. I know that it's all a lot of fun having "free stuff," but at some point in your life you're going to understand that a career isn't about having fun, it's about making a living and getting something tangible out of what it is you're doing. You make these statements like it's something that's some kind of threat to me. I can assure you it isn't, in part because I work very hard to stay ahead of the curve, not behind it. You seem to think you're telling me things I don't know, don't realize, or somehow feel threatened by. All of those conclusions are more false than you can possibly realize.

 

[mikeburton]

You know Mike, Marc et al always rant about the early days of color grading, telecine etc, You guys should really write a history book or something as most of us on here (I should say then majority of us on here) don't care too much about that über expensive period in film history when we couldn't get our dreams out simply because of "money". Thanks to companies like Red, Black, Apple, and Adobe, the art of filmmaking is now open to the masses and everyone can go out grab a camera, tell stories, shoot, edit, color grade, score, foley, and print, publish, promote, distribute all within two weeks. Thank God. Today there are young talented filmmakers creating amazing revolutionary films most of whom don't even know what monitor calibration is. That world of broadcast standards is dying faster than polar ice caps are melting. Even the BBC is lowering their standards to iPhone footage. Resolution, dynamic range, color fidelity, 3D, compression are all so early 2000's it's funny when so called seasoned filmmakers wait to get the next big thing. You'll wait forever as a big thing comes out every month. You can make movies or you can make excuses but you can't do both. There's nothing to stop you today. Hello Kickstarter

Just because the access to tools are available now doesn't make you a better filmmaker / story teller. And I for one find that there is a lot to learn from experienced guys like Mike here. Watching colorist Chris Martin (Fruitvale Station, Fotokem) color my commercial when I was in my last year of college in 2002 on ancient technology was where I really got interested in the craft. The fact that Mike spends his time here is valuable to many, that we all can benefit from. If you don't find what he has to say beneficial then piss off. Cause this is His thread you jerk! It's people like you that have made other very well respected filmmakers leave this forum. The fact that you would unprovokingly make stupid comments to frustrate a valuable member of this community in a thread like this just goes to show what a troll you are. If I were a mod I would start banning people like you who contribute nothing and slowly destroy what's good here. Your opinion is short sighted and although you are entitled to it doesn't mean you should try to spread it like religion. You come off ignorant, rude and arrogant all of which should not be tolerated here.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I have a real problem with people who don't care about the history of their own industry and art form, including its technical history. Where is the curiosity to learn how we got to where we are today??? What's wrong with having a historical perspective???

And most of all, I dislike the kind of posts where someone intrudes into an active discussion and says "you guys are so stupid for being interested in what you are interested in because I'M not interested in it!" I could spend all day going to every thread on RedUser and rating them by how much they interest or don't interest me, if I were really rude.

 

[Corey_O]

I have a real problem with people who don't care about the history of their own industry and art form, including its technical history. Where is the curiosity to learn how we got to where we are today??? What's wrong with having a historical perspective???

And most of all, I dislike the kind of posts where someone intrudes into an active discussion and says "you guys are so stupid for being interested in what you are interested in because I'M not interested in it!" I could spend all day going to every thread on RedUser and rating them by how much they interest or don't interest me, if I were really rude.

Thank you David.


I like Mark Toia's saying "sharing is caring".

Thanks to all who share.

 

[Peter Moretti]

AMEN!!! Generous, experienced, knowledgeable people... of which David and Mike are the FINEST EXAMPLES... deserve our attention, respect and best behavior. Anything less is completely unacceptable.

And art form we are all trying to learn has a history, which is fascinating, informs the present and even shines a light on the future.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

If Mike writes a book I'm buying it.

 

[shashbugu]

If you don't like my answers, don't ask me questions. This thread is called "Ask Mike Most Anything," not "Insult Mike Most For Having Experience And An Opinion."

Besides, where exactly did I "rant about the early days?" Comparing devices like Resolve, Baselight, Lustre, and others is not exactly trodding the path of ancient history. I was asked some questions and I answered them with a bit of perspective because I thought it was interesting. In fact, I went out of my way to state that I didn't want to go back to things that ARE pretty dated, or perhaps you didn't notice

that. You don't have to read what I wrote and you don't have to comment on it. I hope your and "your dreams" can make you a decent living, but in the world you seem to like that's going to be a daunting task. I know that it's all a lot of fun having "free stuff," but at some point in your life you're going to understand that a career isn't about having fun, it's about making a living and getting something tangible out of what it is you're doing. You make these statements like it's something that's some kind of threat to me. I can assure you it isn't, in part because I work very hard to stay ahead of the curve, not behind it. You seem to think you're telling me things I don't know, don't realize, or somehow feel threatened by. All of those conclusions are more false than you can possibly realize.

I got you loud and clear, this is your thread, and I do apologize for ranting about your condescending attitude towards non professionals on it. I have nothing against film history, that's why I suggest you write a book. Re-read what you just posted and deduce the fact that LOW COST IS Definetley a threat to you. Life is not all about making a decent living, life is about making a wonderful fulfilling living and making the best film you can "by any honest means necessary". I'm not ranting about this thread, I'm ranting about your general attitude towards newer younger filmmakers. I know you are very knowledgeable in broadcast post workflows, and I actually learn a lot from you, but I'm just telling you after reading your comments week in and week out what I feel about you. I don't know you, just what I read....

 

[shashbugu]

I have a real problem with people who don't care about the history of their own industry and art form, including its technical history. Where is the curiosity to learn how we got to where we are today??? What's wrong with having a historical perspective???

And most of all, I dislike the kind of posts where someone intrudes into an active discussion and says "you guys are so stupid for being interested in what you are interested in because I'M not interested in it!" I could spend all day going to every thread on RedUser and rating them by how much they interest or don't interest me, if I were really rude.

There's a vast difference between a historical perspective and a continuous condescending attitude thread after thread opinion based on having a historical perspective. But like Mike Most said I don't have to read his threads or comment on his posts so I do apologize for ranting out of context.

 

[shashbugu]

Just because the access to tools are available now doesn't make you a better filmmaker / story teller. And I for one find that there is a lot to learn from experienced guys like Mike here. Watching colorist Chris Martin (Fruitvale Station, Fotokem) color my commercial when I was in my last year of college in 2002 on ancient technology was where I really got interested in the craft. The fact that Mike spends his time here is valuable to many, that we all can benefit from. If you don't find what he has to say beneficial then piss off. Cause this is His thread you jerk! It's people like you that have made other very well respected filmmakers leave this forum. The fact that you would unprovokingly make stupid comments to frustrate a valuable member of this community in a thread like this just goes to show what a troll you are. If I were a mod I would start banning people like you who contribute nothing and slowly destroy what's good here. Your opinion is short sighted and although you are entitled to it doesn't mean you should try to spread it like religion. You come off ignorant, rude and arrogant all of which should not be tolerated here.

Access to tools allows more people access to better education which produces better filmmakers over time. You can dice it anyway you want, have a protectionist attitude or worship the few with access, but anyhow you put we'll have more Chris martins around the world with fotokems on their iPads. Sorry I came across as rude, all I'm saying is limitations in filmmaking technology made made harder working professionals not better filmmakers.

 

[M Most]

I got you loud and clear, this is your thread, and I do apologize for ranting about your condescending attitude towards non professionals on it. I have nothing against film history, that's why I suggest you write a book. Re-read what you just posted and deduce the fact that LOW COST IS Definetley a threat to you. ....I'm not ranting about this thread, I'm ranting about your general attitude towards newer younger filmmakers. I know you are very knowledgeable in broadcast post workflows, and I actually learn a lot from you, but I'm just telling you after reading your comments week in and week out what I feel about you. I don't know you, just what I read....

I probably shouldn't even answer this because I really don't feel I have to, but.......

Low cost is not a "threat" to me. It's actually a help because I can own many of the tools I've formerly had to rely on an employer to supply. It IS a threat to you and anyone coming up because it hinders one's ability to make a living - clearly something you're not thinking about right now. But eventually, you will, because you will have to. When the tools are cheap, the people who operate them become cheaper as well, whether one wants to recognize that or not. And that happens at all levels of the industry, even if it might not affect those at the higher paid levels quite as severely.

If my use of the term "professional colorists" sounds condescending to you, perhaps every time I use it you should read it as "colorists I know who work in both television and digital intermediate, but primarily in television, in post facilities primarily in Los Angeles, who together color more than 90% of what airs on major broadcast and cable networks." If that's more descriptive of the group I'm usually referring to without being "condescending," feel free to substitute it. But it's a hell of a lot to write every time I want to refer to the group of colorists I'm talking about.

And one final thought. Youth and inexperience does not make anyone "better," either as a free thinker or as an artist. Everyone has a mind of their own, and everyone draws from their own experience when they're being creative. And believe it or not, there are creative people in their 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and even 90's. Youth does not in itself bestow some great gift of creative ability, nor does age detract from it. Those who challenge the experienced by labeling them as "threatened" are often expressing their own fears or frustrations at a lack of positive feedback or creative acceptance of their own efforts. That's not an accusation, it's just something to think about. :anti-old:

 

[mikeburton]

life is about making a wonderful fulfilling living and making the best film you can "by any honest means necessary". I'm not ranting about this thread, I'm ranting about your general attitude towards newer younger filmmakers.

Not all of us "Make Films" for a living. We aren't all attempting to be a director and express ourselves. Some of us are both artists, technicians and in business for ourselves. Which means, you need to make money. I love what I do and feel very greatful to have found a passion for my work but now that i have a family, I care about supporting them. That's WAY more important to me than making a film and spending more money than i make on a passion project or two. I think you are showing your age here and your naive to think the rest of us follow your same path in this industry. You're dreams are yours alone, and frankly, if they come with a cynical attitude attached, I think there best kept to yourself.

 

[Carlos Reyes]

Keep it up Mike, I'm actually fascinated by the history of all these tools. I was just having a conversation with a friend about your recent posts about setting up a telecine room. Amazing how far we've come.

I find it ridiculous how someone can completely disregard some one like Mike Most or Marc Wielage providing insight that is otherwise very difficult to come by. Theyre not being condescending towards young filmmakers, simply providing insight, so not sure how you're interpreting that Shashbugu. Someone asked a question, he answered.

 

[shashbugu]

Not all of us "Make Films" for a living. We aren't all attempting to be a director and express ourselves. Some of us are both artists, technicians and in business for ourselves. Which means, you need to make money. I love what I do and feel very greatful to have found a passion for my work but now that i have a family, I care about supporting them. That's WAY more important to me than making a film and spending more money than i make on a passion project or two. I think you are showing your age here and your naive to think the rest of us follow your same path in this industry. You're dreams are yours alone, and frankly, if they come with a cynical attitude attached, I think there best kept to yourself.

Like I said I don't know you, just what I read, whatever it is that limits you from pursuing passion projects is non of my business. All I'm saying just because you are focused on only making a living does not mean you poop on other people's passion parades. You can continuously attack me, my age, whatever... I won't take it personally. I'll only assume you are ticked of by my rant towards Mr Mike Most threads.

 

[shashbugu]

Keep it up Mike, I'm actually fascinated by the history of all these tools. I was just having a conversation with a friend about your recent posts about setting up a telecine room. Amazing how far we've come.

I find it ridiculous how someone can completely disregard some one like Mike Most or Marc Wielage providing insight that is otherwise very difficult to come by. Theyre not being condescending towards young filmmakers, simply providing insight, so not sure how you're interpreting that Shashbugu. Someone asked a question, he answered.

Boss, I apologized. Leave me be. In the future I'll better point out the condescending posts.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

When visiting Mikes thread DBAA!

Burp ?

 

[Carlos Reyes]

Boss, I apologized. Leave me be. In the future I'll better point out the condescending posts.

Not trying to single you out, just felt like you were misinterpreting Mike's tone. I dont know your age or anything about you, but im young and after covering my basic needs I spend all the money I make shooting funding passion projects, equipment for my own productions etc. I care more about making content that I feel can affect people than making a decent living. Some may say that makes me naive, maybe theyre right. I hear you loud and clear. But understanding where the tools we use today come from, the limitations faced in the past etc. offer us a perspective that I think is necessary to appreciate just how lucky we are to have access to the tools and means of distribution readily available.