Grade Walkthrough: Re-light

[Patrick O'Sullivan]

I got a message from a fellow reduser asking to explain the grading on our last spot shot on the Scarlet.

It is always easiest to put it on video so I thought I'd share it.

This was a very quick shoot with a two man crew. I was shooting, directing, and coordinating all at the same time so there was no lights on set as we had to keep moving. One of the great benefits of shooting RAW is the relight ability. I am not saying this is an advisable way to shoot. Just saying it is possible. If you want your stuff to look like film or tv level stuff then light accordingly. If you are short on time and budget here are a few tips.

Check out the whole Director's Cut version of the ad here:

and the actual grade walkthrough:

Redlog Film/RC3:

Graded:

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Thanks for sharing!

 

[James Drake]

Thanks Patrick, a cool look into the process. Interesting process using sharpening ->neat video -> grain. Were you denoising it because the colors were showing grain after being pushed? We haven't seen too much issue with shooting outdoors on the MX sensor.

 

[Petri Teittinen]

Thank you for yet another nice video, Patrick.

 

[Patrick O'Sullivan]

Were you denoising it because the colors were showing grain after being pushed? We haven't seen too much issue with shooting outdoors on the MX sensor.

If you really push the color and then check out the shadows on a shot that is already poorly light you will definitely see noise in the shadows. It is not a big deal (you could definitely leave it and 99.9% of people would be none the wiser) but I like the grain to match from shot to shot so you have to start with a neutral base.

That base is Neat Video. It can soften the image though and after having graded my fair share of MX stuff and finished those spots in AE I know how much sharpening to plug in to compensate for the softening. Just play with it and see where it gets you. Then pop the uniform grain on top and you are 100% sure of what you are getting in terms of shot by shot matching.


Or just expose the scene properly in the first place or rearrange you composition to get the skin levels where they need to be.

Thanks for watching. Hope it helped.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I'm still kind of baffled why you would need 9 nodes for this. Granted, the ideal situation would be to actually light the shot and optimize the exposure prior to color correction. Starting with nothing means you basically have to start over from scratch. For actual, paying projects, particularly commercials, music videos, and so on, time is of the essence. If the colorist doesn't have the benefit of working with a skilled DP who's already gotten 3/4 of the way there through lights, it'll take us hours to go through 3 minutes of material. We can absolutely work this way, but I'm not sure there are many clients willing to pay for this.

The other flaw is that you're not going to see a reasonable exposure during the editing process. This can be dangerous, particularly with editors and directors who live with this image for weeks, even months, and then get thrown when they see what can be done in a color-correction room.

I can see where Patrick is in a unique position where he operates the camera and is responsible for color-correction later on, but I'm not sure this is a real-world situation that will work for everyone.

Note that the major animated features work in a similar way: staffs of dozens and dozens of CG "lighters," who literally paint in every glare, every shadow, every key light, every backlight, rimlight, everything you can imagine. The before-and-after shots of animated material, like the stuff done on Wall-E and other animated films, is pretty stunning. But that took about a week per minute of material to do.

 

[Patrick O'Sullivan]

I'm still kind of baffled why you would need 9 nodes for this.

Thanks for watching Marc.

Yes as I state in the clip I only broke it down to 9 nodes to make it easier for people to see all the steps. But I'm not sure why 9 nodes is a flaw? To add a node takes less than 1/10 of a second. Reach out right finger and click Add Serial on Tangent Element. Job done. Why is that an issue?

If the colorist doesn't have the benefit of working with a skilled DP who's already gotten 3/4 of the way there through lights, it'll take us hours to go through 3 minutes of material.

Yes. A properly exposed shot is easier to work with. Yes it is better to get it on the day. Is that the only way? No. Does it take longer in post? Depends on who is doing the DI.

The other flaw is that you're not going to see a reasonable exposure during the editing process. This can be dangerous, particularly with editors and directors who live with this image for weeks, even months, and then get thrown when they see what can be done in a color-correction room.

If you are working with people who don't understand the powers of DI then you are already in trouble.

I shoot, edit, grade, and finish every clip I display here on reduser. That does as you say give me a distinct advantage in that I can perform all parts of the job but I would also add that there are quite a few jack of all trades reading these forums. As prices for cinema level gear begins to drop it becomes silly not to venture farther out from your comfort zone. The old model of needing a different person with a different rate for every job is no longer applicable to lower budget work.

As a colorist I have never come across a client who was shocked by my relighting. Obviously if you are coloring some one else's project there needs to be an understanding of creative limits for the colorist. Once those are established and the feeling, mood, and settings have been agreed upon they are quite happy for me to bring the best out of an image.

 

[Shane Kelly]

Thanks Patrick, nice demo.
I agree with you in saying that there's no problem with 9 nodes on a shot, it's so easy to add one to take care of a specific section of the shot. Yesterday I used around 7 nodes on a very simple shot of a person in a grocery store. Use as many nodes as you want in order to get the job done.
I disagree that what you are doing would be called "re-lighting". To me, it's simply color-correction and it's what I would expect in an online color session. Nice grade, though and keep the demos coming.

 

[Patrick O'Sullivan]

Thanks Patrick, nice demo.

I disagree that what you are doing would be called "re-lighting". To me, it's simply color-correction and it's what I would expect in an online color session. Nice grade, though and keep the demos coming.

Thanks Shane.

I agree about it being simple color correction. I don't actually call it relighting. I just used that term up to differentiate playing with secondary exposures inside a shot without effecting colors. Thought it might be easier for newcomers to understand.

 

[Shane Kelly]

Good point. I think it's important for budding cinematographers to know what can be done in post, not that it always will be done but what fixes are actually feasible. There's fixes and there's enhancement, what you are doing is the latter but it's good to know, on set, what you can get away with.
I was messing around in davinci yesterday and discovered the ease of use of hue vs hue to fix a fluorescent contaminated background. Made me very happy. Also made me a geek.
As I said, keep the tutorials coming,
Best,
Shane.

 

[Marc Wielage]

As a colorist I have never come across a client who was shocked by my relighting. Obviously if you are coloring some one else's project there needs to be an understanding of creative limits for the colorist. Once those are established and the feeling, mood, and settings have been agreed upon they are quite happy for me to bring the best out of an image.

Agreed. But: speed is of the essence. If I can get 90% of the way there in 1 node, or -- god forbid -- 2, the client will appreciate it. I'm thinking of situations where we have a room full of three people who have to catch a plane in three hours, and trust me, this happens every day in LA.

Even when you're doing work for yourself or your own company, it's really, really expedient to get to where you need to go quickly. I can think of many occasions where I've had to take over color-correction jobs from other operators at certain companies, and I was sometimes bewildered at the number of steps they took to go from Point A to Point B. In one case (for a major A-list studio trailer), I literally got to certain shots where the director leaned over and said, "man, I never liked that shot. Can we do something about it?" The previous colorist had done about 8 power windows and four or five secondaries. I threw them all out, started over... and got a beautiful, clean look with two layers. That's it. The difference was massive.

As I said, relighting can be done in post, but at what cost? To me, it diminishes the role of the DP, because this is what their artistry entitles them to do on the set. To me, the role of the colorist is to enhance their work, not try to step in and undo or redo the naturalness of the scene and the core of the image that was there in production.

BTW: I'm quick to add that there are certain ultra-extreme, heavy-duty looks which absolutely will require a dozen or more layers (or nodes), and there's no simple way to get there from a basic look. For situations like this, "natural" isn't what the creative artists want or need, and so we pull out all the stops and go at it. But for a simple shot like what I see above, I don't think that's what you need to do. Less really can be more.