Some questions and criticisms about '24'

[Karim D. Ghantous]

So I'm now watching season 8. Loving it. But I noticed a few things that rather bugged me about seasons 7 and 8.

Season 7's early episodes looked really... flat. Dull skin, 'dry' shadows, a lack of richness in the image. All seasons of 24 except season 9 were filmed with 35mm. So what was going on there?

Another thing: in episode 1 or 2 of season 8, I noticed some shots, including one with a white police car, which had blown highlights. Okay, so all capture media clip, and that's fine. But from what I can tell, those highlights were well within the dynamic range of the stock (some kind of 500T, I assume). Is there no highlight recovery setting in these editing applications?

One more question: does anyone know how the negative was treated after production? Did it get duplicated (e.g. interpositive contact print) and scanned, or did the camera negatives get scanned directly?

 

[Marc Wielage]

Season 7's early episodes looked really... flat. Dull skin, 'dry' shadows, a lack of richness in the image. All seasons of 24 except season 9 were filmed with 35mm. So what was going on there?

I would guess "creative intent." Whoever was supervising and approving the sessions asked for it to look that way. There are quite a few shows on TV where they go in the opposite direction of wanting them to look "natural" or "beautiful," and they deliberately want it to have a gritty, nasty, weird look. It's their choice.

Another thing: in episode 1 or 2 of season 8, I noticed some shots, including one with a white police car, which had blown highlights. Okay, so all capture media clip, and that's fine. But from what I can tell, those highlights were well within the dynamic range of the stock (some kind of 500T, I assume). Is there no highlight recovery setting in these editing applications?

The first 8 seasons as far as I know were done at Encore/Hollywood on daVinci 2K. (Mike Most would know more about it.) My guess is that they scanned the negatives on a Spirit to HDCam or D5, using some kind of overall Log setting, and then conformed those tapes to a source tape and did the entire show tape-to-tape, which was pretty standard for film dramas in those days. Highlight recovery is relatively easy assuming a decent exposure and a correct scan setting. But there are people who want the highlights deliberately blown and you can't talk them out of it. My tactic is to walk right up to the point where the image almost clips, but if the client is intent on that look, our job is to give them what they ask for. It's not the colorist's show -- it's the client's show.

One more question: does anyone know how the negative was treated after production? Did it get duplicated (e.g. interpositive contact print) and scanned, or did the camera negatives get scanned directly?

I would guess the show was shot in 3-perf 35mm and all the camera rolls were saved in warehouses, which is very standard for FOX and the other American networks and studios. Almost no TV shows made in the last 20 years went through an IP/IN stage -- it was just negative scanned to SD or HD videotape.

One thing you have to consider: the TV shows were made at a breakneck pace and a limited budget, and they frequently shot A&B camera on 10-15 scenes a day. As a result, there was often as much as 5-6 hours of material to scan every single day for dailies, sometimes more. At best, it takes about double time to sync up this material and scan it all, just in HD. There are data-driven methods to do it now that can go somewhat at high speed -- maybe 30fps -- but it's still a slower way to work than merely copying and syncing HD or 4K files. Also bear in mind that the final color correction for a 1-hour show generally had to happen in no more than 2 working days. Given all that, it's a miracle the shows look as good as they do.

BTW, note that DP Rodney Charters was nominated for an Emmy twice for his cinematography on the show, so somebody thought it looked good.