Color Grading in real time on set

[Andrea Montanelli]

Hi Guys! a client asked me to do color grading in real time with my red dragon, is it possible?
what do i need?
thanks!

 

[Jake Wilganowski]

Go into the looks menu, change stuff

Or, get a hotlink and fool control app and do it wirelessly with an iPad

 

[Michele Brandstetter]

Hi Andrea,

you can use davinci resolve live, or upload looks from redcinex.

Send me an email if you need help.

 

[Luca Nervegna]

For color and save the grade LOOK as metadata you can do as Jake said..
or you can use a lutbox (HD-Link) and a software as Pomfort LiveGrade and then send the 3D LUT to the colorist

 

[Keith Putnam]

How extensive of a live color grade are you looking to do?

The usual way of these things is to send a LOG image out of the camera, and the use a combination of a LUT box (HDLink, IS-mini, etc) and live grading software (Pomfort LiveGrade, LinkColor, Resolve Live) to apply a LOG to LIN transform LUT to the video stream and overlay a CDL that you manipulate to dial in the color look you want.

Afterward you'll either apply the LUT and CDL to the downloaded footage and render out your own dailies in something like Resolve or Scratch, or you pass along the LUT and CDL to a colorist as a starting point for the final, or most commonly do both so the editor has something decent to work with and the colorist knows the on-set intent as a starting place for the final.

If you're looking to do a more "finished" grade on set, like with secondaries and power windows, I think you'll have to rely on Resolve Live or possibly Scratch.

 

[Brian Merlen]

I never have done this workflow on set, but prepped for it before...resolve live is a great too, lots of control. the other possibilities are good too tho, and the above info should hopefully help out

 

[Mikael Lubtchansky]

Go into the looks menu, change stuff

Or, get a hotlink and fool control app and do it wirelessly with an iPad

Thanks Jake

FWIW Martin Ahlgren used foolcontrol OS X to create and apply grades directly in cameras on set of house of cards season 3 on multiple dragons wirelessly during several months... A new big blockbuster will probably start doing the same soon.

I am finishing adding LIFT GAMMA GAIN controls in foolcontrol OS X as it is now enabled in camera... And soon you will be able to do everything using a tangent element panel

 

[Paul E. McCarthy]

Thanks Jake

FWIW Martin Ahlgren used foolcontrol OS X to create and apply grades directly in cameras on set of house of cards season 3 on multiple dragons wirelessly during several months... A new big blockbuster will probably start doing the same soon.

I am finishing adding LIFT GAMMA GAIN controls in foolcontrol OS X as it is now enabled in camera... And soon you will be able to do everything using a tangent element panel

How is the Tangent panel connected to the camera?

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Set time is much more expensive per hour than any grading suite. Add to that the fact that you are not grading the shots in the context of an edit, and likely will be doing old school lift-gamma-gain and nothing more, and that set cannot usually provide you with a light-controlled grading environment. To me on-set grading is the dumbest idea ever. Why not on-set script writing too?

 

[Mikael Lubtchansky]

How is the Tangent panel connected to the camera?

Connect to mac laptop, not directly to camera.

Set time is much more expensive per hour than any grading suite. Add to that the fact that you are not grading the shots in the context of an edit, and likely will be doing old school lift-gamma-gain and nothing more, and that set cannot usually provide you with a light-controlled grading environment. To me on-set grading is the dumbest idea ever. Why not on-set script writing too?

Being able to quickly send a look (curves of simple LGG) makes sense to be able to display a more acurate image on all set monitors and also allows for pre-looked dailies / edit files.
The fact that it can be done on set wirelessly to camera metadata (most of time it is quick and can also be reapplying or adjusting a previously saved look) has the huge avantage of being baked into the R3D forever and won't risk being lost like a .RMD sidecar. The DOP can assign a look that will stay with the raw image all the way into post.

 

[Brian Merlen]

who said on set script writing isn't used haha!

 

[Marc Wielage]

Set time is much more expensive per hour than any grading suite. Add to that the fact that you are not grading the shots in the context of an edit, and likely will be doing old school lift-gamma-gain and nothing more, and that set cannot usually provide you with a light-controlled grading environment. To me on-set grading is the dumbest idea ever. Why not on-set script writing too?

The delays on set for the DP, plus the difficulty of getting a calibrated monitor in an optimized viewing environment, are pretty steep challenges. I think it is possible to do near-set dailies effectively, assuming you can put the DIT or colorist in a trailer or tent near the production and have the DP or director pop their heads in a few times a day to set an overall temp look for dailies. This works fine and has been done on many shoots, but it's not ideal for a fast-paced, low-budget location shoot.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

On set color can be done effectively and give the DP greater control over the look.

It can be a boondoggle if you don't have a clear plan and buy in from key personnel.

FWIW, I built out a custom Sprinter Van based solution that provides a proper viewing environment, because I agree with Marc - without it you are heading for a rabbit hole.

Cheers - #19

 

[Keith Putnam]

Per the several comments about how grading on set is silly or whatnot, I presume you must be thinking of trying to do a *final* color grade on set. I agree that this is not a wise idea, for several reasons.

But doing a "dailies" or "first light" or whatever you want to call a rough color grade, as I do all day every day on my show, is an extremely valuable tool. It presents the DP and director and producers with a much closer to final look while shooting than you can get with whatever the default output of the camera may be, and it is *enormously* helpful for lighting to be able to see how your lighting and exposure interact with both the contrast curve you intend to use and the overall color treatment you intend to apply.

Further, on-set coloring is probably the best way of communicating your color intent to the final colorist, and it also ensures that everybody watching rough cuts is seeing the color intent established on set, also with much of the color disparities between cameras and lenses already ironed out so the rough edit is smoother to watch.

You may be surprised how much the broadcast episodes of Madam Secretary look nearly identical to the color treatment I create on set.

 

[Jake Wilganowski]

It's not that hard or time consuming at all, I pretty much do it every shoot with foolcontrol. And since we are recording raw, everything can be re-adjusted later if needed. It's super quick to do on set. Easy.

 

[Eric Haase]

Thanks Jake

FWIW Martin Ahlgren used foolcontrol OS X to create and apply grades directly in cameras on set of house of cards season 3 on multiple dragons wirelessly during several months... A new big blockbuster will probably start doing the same soon.

I am finishing adding LIFT GAMMA GAIN controls in foolcontrol OS X as it is now enabled in camera... And soon you will be able to do everything using a tangent element panel

Will you have support for the Tangent Wave as well?

 

[Adrian Jebef]

Set time is much more expensive per hour than any grading suite. Add to that the fact that you are not grading the shots in the context of an edit, and likely will be doing old school lift-gamma-gain and nothing more, and that set cannot usually provide you with a light-controlled grading environment. To me on-set grading is the dumbest idea ever. Why not on-set script writing too?

The delays on set for the DP, plus the difficulty of getting a calibrated monitor in an optimized viewing environment, are pretty steep challenges. I think it is possible to do near-set dailies effectively, assuming you can put the DIT or colorist in a trailer or tent near the production and have the DP or director pop their heads in a few times a day to set an overall temp look for dailies. This works fine and has been done on many shoots, but it's not ideal for a fast-paced, low-budget location shoot.

We did on-set grading for Mockingjay Pts 1&2. If anything the process sped up our production time and cut our post time considerably. Having a proper on-set (not just near-set) color grading setup is not difficult to achieve. It requires the right gear, the right environment, and a fully vetted workflow chain. Though we were a multi-hundred million dollar production we had a tight schedule and could not afford delays. As an example Catching Fire was shot on film and had about a six week DI. Mockingjay Pt 1 was shot on Alexa using a simple CDL on-set color workflow and the DI took about a third of that time. I'd say almost 70% of the films final look was almost exactly as it was shot on set using on-set color. The only real color deviations were some of the exterior scenes. Personally I see on-set color as a win-win not only from a Production standpoint but also from an artistic or creative one. Technology is moving fast and Post has come to set. I understand the difficulty in (re)moving a part of the creative process from the Post colorist to an on-set colorist (or DIT). It is not easy to relinquish control or artistic impact. That being said the process continues to be collaborative. Most importantly on-set color allows a DP to get closer to his or her pure intention concerning a films photography. I would argue that that is a good thing.

Concerning Mockingjay our production team realized a number of advantages with on-set color. Our DP was able to light scenes with his intended creative look already applied in real time. This allowed for proper exposure adjustments to be made on set that compensated for or enhanced that look. The same with set/scene color. Production design, practical lights, and colored gels used in scenes were dialed in perfectly because we had the ability to preview the finished product live in real-time with our on-set color cart. Preview is perhaps the wrong word to use as the process is not as one-dimensional as say a VFX previz. With on-set color a DP is able to play off his lighting choices with his post grading choices all at once. Instead of fighting against him/herself and reacting to them as two separate processes a talented cinematographer can meld them into one holistic creative approach toward the final image. It becomes an ebb-and-flow. Once learned and exercised the on-set color process makes the photography more efficient and more creative. It also makes it rock solid and consistent. Gone are concerns about exposure, latitude, color reproduction etc. Confidence is key.

 

[Mikael Lubtchansky]

Will you have support for the Tangent Wave as well?

I think it could work as tangent now uses a common sdk for all their devices (including virtual ones on iPad)... will know for sure in upcoming week.

 

[Bruce Schultz]

What Adrian J outlines is spot-on exactly right. On-set color is not a boondoggle but rather a boon to both DP's & directors because it sets the colors and tone right there on the spot while it is happening.

Let's not forget that when on-set color is not used, the footage (usually raw R3D's or Log ProRes) goes out to post production and an assistant editor will most likely in the middle of the night days or weeks later simply apply a canned LUT to ALL of the footage regardless of what conditions it was shot in - daylight, tungsten, exterior, night, interior etc. One size fits all fits nothing, so having the color and tone looks embedded at least in a Look to be applied later or better still in on set struck dailies is a huge advancement.

I've been doing live grade on-set color (as well as synced one-light dailies) on several feature projects and it has been very satisfactory for the DP's confidence that his look will be preserved throughout the post process. Having seen some truly awful dailies that people were stuck watching for months is enough to convince anyone of the necessity for on set color & dailies.

ACES is about to have a huge rollout at 2105 NAB to get it more used and adopted on set as well as in post to make it THE de facto industry standard color space to work within.

 

[M Most]

Let's not forget that when on-set color is not used, the footage (usually raw R3D's or Log ProRes) goes out to post production and an assistant editor will most likely in the middle of the night days or weeks later simply apply a canned LUT to ALL of the footage regardless of what conditions it was shot in - daylight, tungsten, exterior, night, interior etc. One size fits all fits nothing, so having the color and tone looks embedded at least in a Look to be applied later or better still in on set struck dailies is a huge advancement.

While that might be somewhat true on some shows, particularly in the lower budget ranges, it is not the case in studio level production, for either theatrical or broadcast projects. Dailies are almost always handled by a near set setup with a qualified person at the controls. Even when there is an on set color presence, those grades are usually implemented by a dailies operator/colorist and tweaked when necessary for better scene matching and/or creative notes (and sometimes re-colored after the creatives see it in editorial). The color that is baked into both editorial and viewing dailies is the result of this, and the result of someone being able to judge what is going out in a significantly better viewing environment than on a typical set. Color is not done by editors or assistant editors, it is implemented by someone who is actively working with the camera department to pass on creative intent properly. The days of "the dailies colorist at the facility ruined my work" are long gone, as there is rarely any film, and rarely any actual facility involved. What is done is done in concert with the production unit, on a dedicated system, operated by a person whose sole focus is that one show.

As for the DI taking less time, I don't really see it that way. DI's from film generally took longer than today's DI's, not because of on set color, but because film scans were not always completely consistent. The use of film dictated that one medium was being converted to another, and then manipulated in a different form than it started out as. With digital capture, the DI colorist is essentially working directly from the original camera capture, with no translation, no manipulations (such as scanner settings that are necessary for film scans), and no inconsistencies. This means that scene lighting (and thus the source material) is as consistent as the original photography would allow, and "finding" the base grade is much simpler than with film. With or without a visual guide provided by an on set color system, DI's from digital sources are just quicker, simpler, and more consistent than they ever were from film. I would also point out that when you're doing the third or fourth installment of a continuing series, there is a lot of shorthand that has already been established between the creative team and the DI colorist. Unless there are significant production problems, I would think it would be expected that the DI process would be faster, since the "basics" have already been determined, and the taste of the creative team is already known. In other words, when you already have a blueprint, you can build a house a lot quicker than when you're trying to figure it out as you go. I'm not saying that on set color - done well (which is not always the case) - isn't valuable. It certainly is, particularly when done by someone who's good at it (as Adrian is). But having been deeply involved in post production for a long, long time, I would also say that implying that it seriously affects the time required for the DI is a bit of a stretch, unless one was present at the DI sessions and knows first hand how extensively the settings or even the images from original production were actually used in those sessions. As someone who has sat in that colorist's chair, and knows most of the people who currently do, I would say that situation is pretty rare, regardless of what you might read in Studio Daily articles.