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 :)

Color Correction Resources on a Budget

DIY

DIY

Why not DIY?
 
If DIY works for you and your projects and/or clients then yes, do it yourself. If you possess the knowledge and craftsmanship, DIY. I do not and I recognize that the talents of a colorist are not something I have, so I turn to others who do.

I also feel (and this is how it pertains to myself) that my relationship with the colorist is just as important as that with the gaffer. I also don't really enjoy wearing a bunch of different hats anymore. I'm a cameraman, specifically working hard to continue working as a director of photography. I have worn many hats and have enjoyed many aspects of filmmaking. As of today though, I find myself much happier in both life and work just focusing on the craft of cinematography.

Yes, this includes color correction and I am fairly educated with it. I get the best results when I work with someone more knowledgeable and talented in this specific area. I need this partner.

Otherwise I spend hours and hours "experimenting" in the lab...
 
Budget

Budget

Shawn Booth said:
Otherwise I spend hours and hours "experimenting" in the lab...
Click to expand...

That's one reason why I desigined my own CC and DI software, so I could get the results I want without the issues and cost.

It's easer to have someone else do the work, but on a budget? My problem is that everyone competent I could hire makes so much more than I do that its out of reach.

You are lucky indeed to have found resources that meet your budget and at the same time give you better results than you can get on your own.
 
Not everyone is as knowledgeable as you are Dan... personally, I would never expect to do my own color-correction work and have it match what I could get at a post house. I don't have the scopes and waveforms and calbrated monitors AND knowledge and experience needed.

Over the years, every DIY color-correction I've seen or been a part of has always needed to be redone once delivered to a D.I. facility because the basic levels were off and non-standard due to using improperly calibrated reference monitors and not knowing how to use scopes properly.

This doesn't mean that a clever person like yourself couldn't figure all this stuff out and get the right equipment, but don't assume that everyone is as clever as you or wants to spend that time and money to set-up and manage a proper color-correction system.

But it also depends on what the project is for, and how accurate the color-correction has to be.
 
Getting the best finish from your RED RAW files ...

Getting the best finish from your RED RAW files ...

David Mullen ASC said:
Not everyone is as knowledgeable as you are Dan... personally, I would never expect to do my own color-correction work and have it match what I could get at a post house. I don't have the scopes and waveforms and calbrated monitors AND knowledge and experience needed.

Over the years, every DIY color-correction I've seen or been a part of has always needed to be redone once delivered to a D.I. facility because the basic levels were off and non-standard due to using improperly calibrated reference monitors and not knowing how to use scopes properly.

This doesn't mean that a clever person like yourself couldn't figure all this stuff out and get the right equipment, but don't assume that everyone is as clever as you or wants to spend that time and money to set-up and manage a proper color-correction system.

But it also depends on what the project is for, and how accurate the color-correction has to be.
Click to expand...

Agree wholeheartedly with David on this matter .... if you want a great looking RED finish get a skilled DP to shoot it for you and take your .r3ds to a post house that knows how to get the most out of RED RAW.

When it comes to finishing RED, not all post-houses are the same .... you need one that has experience with RED, a highly calibrated grading environment and a talented colorist .... we've work with experienced ASC DPs and first time RED filmmakers and always make their images look stunning.

To give you an idea of what's involved in color correcting and finishing RED to the highest standard, here's a post I made in another thread:

" ... You raise some some very valid points about the challenges involved in getting the most from RED footage .... we were fortunate enough to be involved in grading the first images from the first RED prototype camera way back in the summer of 2006 (in RED years that is ancient history) ... the original .3rd files were 16 bit TIFFS (76 MB each) and Jim would take the TIFFS into Photoshop, adjust the curves until he got the look he wanted and then Graeme would adjust the de-bayering algorithm until it matched Jim's look and then we'd grade the images in Scratch ... don't know if you remember the beautiful clip of the black Oakley watch - well, it didn't look quite so amazing when we first saw the images ;-)

We've graded every version of the camera firmware from many different RED cameras over the last three years and have been tracking the way Graeme has been improving his algorithms ... the key to getting the most out of the .r3ds files is to understand how Graeme is applying his genius to extracting the maximum color information with the least amount of noise from RED RAW. De-bayering is both a science and art ... Graeme is the consummate Renaissance man able to combine high-tech in the service of artistic vision ... know the man, know the technology.

Along with improvements in camera technology we have a grading environment that also helps match the developments in digital acquisition to improvements in color correction techniques:

1) a $100,000 2k DLP projector with deep blacks and wide color gamut
2) an $18,000 spectroradiometer which allows us to measure the RGB values of the projector to within one thousand of any color space standard we choose
3) a special 20 foot DI screen that is non-perforated and reflects light and color without any shift in gamma or chromaticity.

This high-end, tightly calibrated viewing environment means we can absolutely trust the images coming back off the screen and is a stable constant in the ever changing world of digital acquisition and workflow ... we can tell if RED or Assimilate or Apple change any part of the imaging chain and make adjustments (or phone calls) as necessary. Grading the 4k .r3d files in a tightly calibrated grading environment is key to getting the highest quality finish from RED footage.

We don't grade off CRTs or LCDs ... there's real difference between the brain's perception of transmissive light through a small monitor versus reflective light from a large projection screen .... color grading is a subtle art that depends on many cues from the matrix of colors and shadows that are presented to the eye and interpreted in the brain's visual cortex (you actually see with the brain, not with the eyes) ... the 'magic of movies' take place on the silver screen and its ability to trick the viewer into the 'willing suspension of disbelief' that is the hallmark of the theatrical movie experience.

As well as the technological underpinnings of great color correction we have a highly talented colorist who has two degrees in Art and a deep understanding of color science and has been working with RED files since day one .... when you watch a grading session involving a skilled DP and a talented colorist you are a witness to one of marvels of modern filmmaking .... the interplay of the DPs' artistic vision with the colorist's ability to manipulate the digital images on screen is a a joy to behold .... shooting RED with professional color correction in mind is a recommendation for all RED filmmakers - if you haven't seen your images graded in a top-notch grading environment with a talented colorist who knows how to work with RED RAW you are missing out on the real power of the RED revolution.

If you listen carefully to the comments of Dave Mullin and Mike Most (both highly talented and respected practitioners in their respective fields of cinematography and color correction) you get a sense of how rapidly digital acquisition and file-based workflow is changing and how much 'blood, sweat and tears' goes into staying on top of developments and maintaining mastery of the art and craft of filmmaking.

Though we are in the midst of an amazing technological revolution in filmmaking there is one area where there's no real difference .... whether you're shooting with 35mm or RED its still all about the story .... technology should help serve the artistic vision of the filmmaker not hinder it ... we strive wherever possible to make the technology invisible to Directors and DPs which is why we continually seek to optimize the relationship between 'acquisition + workflow + output' at any given budget.

Great RED finishing is dependent on great RED cinematography and smart workflow .... there are no short-cuts in digital filmmaking ... its still all comes down to the hard work of people like Jim, Graeme, David and Mike continually pushing the envelop so the rest of us can take the tools and make great looking movies...."

So, if you want to see how good RED can look, give us a call and we'll show you professionally graded .3rds in a tightly calibrated DI theater - you'll be amazed.

We're based on the old Warner Bros Lot in West Hollywood next to the Formosa Cafe on Santa Monica Blvd.

Cheers,
Neil
 
Neil,

I agree with all your points, but there's something important to be said for DIY color correction. I've always felt that the more the independent, low budget film makers know about the particular craft that is traditionally practiced by highly educated technicians with highly sophisticated equipment in expensive facilities, the better the interaction between the two groups would become. At the end of the day, color correction, like cinematography is based on very simple, elemental concepts that can, and should be, understood by all. Everybody that makes some sort of a living with a camera knows about exposure, how to play with all available factors and variables to get a proper exposure, and though invariably some get it righter than others, they all go out there well aware of the dangers of under/over exposure. And at the end, exposure relies on two factors, as it has for over 100 years, shutter speed and aperture. And basic color correction is no different, lift/gamma/gain aka shadows/midtones/highlights are the foundation of 95% of all CC work, and balancing and counterbalancing values among those three is the foundation of the craft.

I feel that more people should try and "play" with images and adjust lift/gamma/gain and see how the changes affect individual parts of a scene, and how to balance those adjustments. It would give them an invaluable knowledge about what a scene can look like later on when color graded as they shoot it, and what they can, and can't, get away with. When we first got our F-900 Sony camera, I pulled still frames from all kinds of different situations shot with it and made it mandatory that everybody in our team, from DP's to gaffers played with those frames in photoshop, and learn at what point the image began to break, how far it could be stretched, and what colors and tones were easier to deal with and which ones offered little room to wiggle. Some of them loved the experiment, some hated it, one of them eventually became a colorist, but all understood when the "we'll fix it in post" motto applied or not. Which is not to say that the results achieved by experienced color graders are nothing short of spectacular, those guys can bring out hues and colors and shades that you didn't even know were there, but if the general practitioners out there were just a tad more knowledgeable and a tad less afraid of color correction, I'm sure they would all turn in better footage to the Post houses, shot better, lit better, and more importantly, closer to the final look they want. This would the color grader's life easier, the intereraction with the DP or director more understandable, since they would have an idea of what it is they want for a look as opposed to the "I don't know, just make it snappier, sassier, preppier, cooler, you know, make it pop man, make it pop" line that I've heard so much in grading suites, much to the despair of the colorist :-) and ultimately, it would call for less time spent on such suites, which even in places with reasonable rates, is not by any means an inexpensive proposition, even if it's worth every penny...

Every DP, editor, one-man band, small producer, and especially every RED owner, should have a solid, basic understanding of color correction and should be encouraged to spend some time playing with those images. Everybody wins that way.
 
Rudi Herbert said:
Every DP, editor, one-man band, small producer, and especially every RED owner, should have a solid, basic understanding of color correction and should be encouraged to spend some time playing with those images. Everybody wins that way.
Click to expand...

While I agree that knowledge of what can be done is valuable, one doesn't have to do it themselves to understand that. The vast majority of the best shooters I have worked with as a colorist - and this would include many names that almost everyone here would recognize - have learned what can and cannot be done by shooting tests and then sitting with either myself or another trusted colorist for an hour or two - usually done gratis by the facility - doing various tests during preproduction. It's not necessary for an editor to have hands on experience in final finishing and conforming to understand what can and cannot be done, and it's not really necessary for a cameraman to have hands on experience in color correction to understand what a good colorist can do. Some might enjoy doing it, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that. But I don't see it as being particularly necessary unless one is going to be, as you say, a one man band.
 
It certainly is informative to try your hand at coloring, just as more people should do a little darkroom work with film. I don't have a problem with doing your own color-correction for small projects mainly as an educational experience.

I just all too often run into situations where someone hands their DIY color-correction to some other facility for a film-out or to make a broadcast master, or hands it directly to some broadcaster, only to have it either rejected or discover that it looks totally different in those situations compared to how it looked at home.

It's hard enough to get professional post houses to match each other all using the same calibration tools and reference equipment. A fleshtone timed at one D.I. facility, recorded out to film at another, and answer printed at another lab can end up seeming a bit off, maybe the reds are now too saturated, etc. Subtle stuff like that happens all the time with really professional equipment and people, so imagine how far off some DIY stuff can end up looking in these facilities.

Shooting and posting a movie, almost more than anything else, is about reducing variables so you can track problems with some degree of success. And problems always happen. When shooting film, a simple scratch in the negative already has several places where it could have occurred so tracking down that variable is hard enough. Same goes for HMI flicker problems -- is it the head, the cables, the ballast, the power source, the camera?

However, I'm sure a talented person with a lot of time and money could set-up a decent color-correction system at home, I'm not doubting that it is possible, it's just beyond my time and ability. There are people out there building their own ECN processors at home for developing movie film -- again, that's beyond my time, money, etc. to do that properly but it's certainly possible. However, I tend to work in the realm of the probable, not the possible.
 
Last edited:
where the money goes

where the money goes

1) My software has waveform and croma scopes in it, as well as a digital probe to read the "density" at any point or area in the image, and the probe displays on the output histogram making adjustments visual and numeric. I also have a "magic square" in the lower left that gives you gray balance and brightness, you adjust the values until the the bands disappear and you are more or less adjusted so that the image is usable.

The monitor does not even need to be working well, you can make the adjustments by what the displays show. It is good to use a good monitor though, but so much will be off on the film transfer anyway, one does not need to get too worked up about details that are going to shift. In the "old" days you had 50 lights, and those were MUCH bigger jumps than the fine control digital gives, and many fine films were made.

2) As pointed out different monitors display the images somewhat different, but for the most part that is what people are going to be watching the images on, monitors that do not match well, you cannot grade for a OLED display and expect it to look like a CRT, LED, or film print.

I use video gamma TIF files since if you view on uncompensated CRT monitors of good quality the result will be about the same on all of them if the brightness and contrast is adjusted. If the monitor is out of wack, then it needs to be serviced to have the guns track. That is done with the trim pots inside etc.

3) If the cameraman is not competent to make his own CC adjustments, something I find hard to understand but there may be cases, there is no reason why he cannot involve someone with computer skills in his DIY DI of his project.

4) As far as my software goes, someone can send me an unadjusted TIF from their R3D and I can CC it, then email back a KCC file so they can process the shots that use that lighting. For the most part each shot needs to be adjusted individually because the lighting is not controled enough to keep the faces in the part of the curve that holds up from generation to generation. The better the lighting is controlled the less you need to fuss about when doing the grading for each shot. At lease as far as my current relation to users of my system, they are not on their own they can email me anytime about RED to filmout issues, I have been giving "free" support for 23years to thousands of people all around the world.

5) If you are on a budget are you just a conduit for money passing from the "investor" (or grant e.g. taxpayers) to the "lab/post house", skimming a little off for yourself? If you get to work on a big project then you can skim some more since the volume of the money flow is larger. DIY or not depends on if you are going to come out ahead or not, and that is not just in income but in how the project reflects on you, so you may go with some high priced post house in the hope that you will get better work if they "fix/beautify" what you have shot so it looks better than what came out of the camera. So in that way in part the cameraman is taking credit for the look of a work where the look was not so much his doing, then the producer knows he can hire some other cameraman and use the same post house, or maybe the producer know that if he hires you again you will use the same post house.

An issue with doing everything yourself is that you don't have anyone to blame when the finished product is done, if you outsource you can always blame someone else, so there is value in that.

6) When working with video gamma TIF files if you and your post house cannot see the same thing on a uncompensated PC monitor, then you need to work that out before anything else is done.

It is unfortunate that MACs used a different gamma standard than TVs and uncompensated PC CRT monitors, but that can be delt with by exporting frames with the gamma needed. Its better to just use the same video gamma and have everyone work at that.

You should be able to generate film test strips of key frames before major time is put into filmout. My system lets you generate a test strip of keyframes using the DIY film recorder program, you can then look at the test strip just as you would the tests made in a film printer. Film grading almost always made test strips before final grading, those are viewed in a film strip projector etc.

For video use you can make AVI and process those into the "final" format for viewing. With digital release many of issues with waveforms that analog FM tape had no longer exist since the digital formats will hard clip the values, so video based limits are for the most part something for the history books. Video tape as a media will be gone in a few years, so anything associated with it is going to be as arcane as film printing with lights and filters.

7) If you do camera to filmout then you do not have problems matching other facilities, you match your test strips with your monitor and you get the result you want without matching issues.

8) There are many choices for people, but if you do not know what they are then you may be spending your limited budget in ways that are not going to give the optimum result. It seems the freeware program DCRAW was used to de-mosaic the frames for the movie "Corpse Bride (2005)" and I am sure they had enough money to purchase Canon software for their post house, but they did the image processing with freeware and that makes the point that spending money does not always make for a better result or a bigger profit.
 
Rudi Herbert said:
At the end of the day, color correction, like cinematography is based on very simple, elemental concepts that can, and should be, understood by all.
Click to expand...
Understanding the underlying concepts and executing those concepts in a real world situation to get exactly the results that you want aren't the same thing though. I mean, I understand the underlying concepts of video compression, the internal combustion engine and aerodynamics but I wouldn't be good at doing any of those things professionally.

I do agree though that the more people know about the 'big picture' the more everyone can work together and see how what they do affects everyone else and the process as a whole.


-A
 
Dan Hudgins said:
3) If the cameraman is not competent to make his own CC adjustments, something I find hard to understand but there may be cases, there is no reason why he cannot involve someone with computer skills in his DIY DI of his project.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with competency...

I know how to set lights and adjust... Always insist on having a gaffer.
I know how to "correct" but I'm proficient at it, nor do I want to be. I enjoy the interaction with other craftsmen... collaborating is fun.

And again, wearing several hats isn't for me.

Now, I'd like to get this thread away from the whys/why nots of DIY CC and back to the OP. This discussion has been awesome and informative. Thank you everyone for your knowledge and thoughts.

So - how about some CC resources for those needing it?
 
Well, as usual, any discussion of a budget color grading post resources immediately deteriorates into either unvarnished self promotion or a self help guide. Couple of threads to illustrate:
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=31177
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30084
I believe, Shawn and some other RED users just would like to get some information on their options on NOT a DIY style or a high end DI theater-like environments, but on a quality budget color grading. Unfortunately, as i can see, there is an inordinate amount of discussion on not just a need of professional color grading finish but also on what is considered to be a "budget" rate for this service. I hope we could start a dialog between RED practitioners and post professionals on merits of proper color grading and eventually the cost. It can only benefit everyone involved...
As for shameless self promotion, check out my place:-)
http://web.me.com/jake4n/color
 
Dan Hudgins said:
5) If you are on a budget are you just a conduit for money passing from the "investor" (or grant e.g. taxpayers) to the "lab/post house", skimming a little off for yourself? If you get to work on a big project then you can skim some more since the volume of the money flow is larger. DIY or not depends on if you are going to come out ahead or not, and that is not just in income but in how the project reflects on you, so you may go with some high priced post house in the hope that you will get better work if they "fix/beautify" what you have shot so it looks better than what came out of the camera. So in that way in part the cameraman is taking credit for the look of a work where the look was not so much his doing, then the producer knows he can hire some other cameraman and use the same post house, or maybe the producer know that if he hires you again you will use the same post house.
Click to expand...

That's a bit offensive... I don't know of any DP who gets to "skim" off of the money spent at a post house! Most of the time, I don't even get PAID for the time I spend doing post work let alone get to skim anything off of anyone.

It's not an issue of needing a high-end post house to "fix" my photography, it's an issue of making sure my color-correction decisions follow strict guidelines for making various deliverables: broadcast masters, DCP, laser-recording to I.N., etc. Not to mention that working with a talented colorist is a pleasure and a benefit just as it is to work with a talented gaffer or camera operator. But it's not like I'm taking crappy shots to a post house and asking them to make me look competent! Jeez...
 
Last edited:
contribution of post house to the end result

contribution of post house to the end result

David Mullen ASC said:
I don't know of any DP who gets to "skim" off of the money spent at a post house!
Click to expand...

I was not my intent to offend. I was speaking of a filmmaker acting as a producer and cameraman as some do. If the DP is also a contract then both the DP and Post House are sharing in the funds from the source, investors or grant etc.

In that case I guess the producer and not the DP would select the Post House, so it would be the producer who keeps what is left over after everyone else is paid, which is hopefully a positve number, if not on the books maybe in the pocket.

Sometimes though the cameraman might select the post house and pay for their service as part of his contract to get the footage printable, in that case he gets what is left over. I was not implying that some people might get a "finders fee" or "kick back" from the post house for recomending their services to the producer. If such things go on one would not hear about them would one?

==

Since grading and lighting are closely related I would think that the DP would have his pick of the post house since the post now can change the look of his work so much that his reputation could be made or broken by what happens in post to what he shot.

Developing a "look" for the film before shooting starts is part of production now, and that should be part of the discussion about where the post is done and not so much the budget. Its penny wise and pound foolish to pick a cheep post solution and wreck your cinematography and lighting with "off the shelf" LUT and other gimicks that come with stock tools and give your work a stock effect rather than its own unique quality fitting the subject matter of the work.
 
I really don't understand what you are talking about. I've never heard of the DP's salary being referred to as the DP "sharing investor funds". We don't "share funds" we get paid for our work -- we're salaried below-the-line folks paid through a payroll company. And usually not even that for time spent in post, we volunteer for that.

And if it were all about a producer getting to keep whatever they don't spend out of the post budget, they'd ALL be doing a DIY post at their homes... so I don't get the notion that using expensive post houses is some way of producers keeping more post money from being spent.

You're speaking in some sort of foreign language in terms of my experiences with post.

"Sometimes though the cameraman might select the post house and pay for their service as part of his contract to get the footage printable, in that case he gets what is left over. "
Click to expand...

What the heck does that mean? I don't select post houses, I recommend them sometimes, and I don't pay them anything as part of any contract to get "footage printable" (whatever that means). Have you ever seen a DP's deal memo before??? Since when does a DP pay the post house for any work unless it's their own personal projects, not something they were hired to shoot? "Gets what is left over"? What does that mean? What's "left over"? Do you mean if they budget for five days of color-correction and I do it in four, I get the difference? It doesn't work that way.

I'm finding all of this extremely confusing. You seem to be describing some other world of post production than what I'm involved in shooting features and TV series here in Los Angeles.

"Its penny wise and pound foolish to pick a cheep post solution and wreck your cinematography and lighting with "off the shelf" LUT and other gimicks that come with stock tools and give your work a stock effect rather than its own unique quality fitting the subject matter of the work."
Click to expand...

First you were advocating DIY color-correction and now you are saying it's foolish to pick a cheap post solution? So you're saying that DIY color-correction is more expensive than going to a big post house and hiring a colorist???

Standardization exists for a reason, it's not for "stock effects" it's to maintain artistic control over the product once it gets distributed. You can be as creative as you want in post but if you don't work within delivery standards then who knows what everyone else will be seeing.
 
Last edited:
Seriously, does anyone has anything else to add to the subject of "Color Correction Resources on a Budget", beside DIY color grading or ways to skim money off the top of the post budget? Its amazing to see just how fast any discussion about post solutions can go off on the tangent. Endless questions on countless threads can be found about proper use of color spaces and gamma for color grading, plasma vs LCD vs CRT, 10 vs 8 bits, etc, but for some reason, nobody can ever discuss working with a colorist. Not everyone wants or can do a DIY color grading or can afford to pay for Company 3's services...
Also, I would like to point out, that having means to offer a complete workflow from acquisition all the way to deliverables, while making it completely transparent and effortless, means, that your client isn't left to his own devices to scramble to find a way to finish the RED project. This collaboration can make the difference between happy returning clients and a client, who would never tackle the RED project again.
 
Just giving the name of a post company, because you like the sound of the name isn't a very good reason to recommend it and doesn't actually help anyone looking for a place to do the finish. Simple search of 411 (http://www.la411.com/Post_Production/) can give you this info. How about someone from your personal experience on a project? Who was the actual colorist? Was he knowledgeable, personable, quick, willing to experiment and collaborate, experienced etc. And, please, enlighten us on the price, yes, the cost of the services. Why is it, that everyone posts in bold numbers camera rental prices as is the price of the DP and DIT services, but when it comes to post prices, everyone runs for ze hills?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top