THE COLOR ROOM : Thoughts from Colorists

[David Battistella]

Hey all,

There is a lot of talk about exposure on this forum and I reached out to two colorists who post frequently here Jake Blackstone and Marc Wielage to share their thoughts on some questions that may come across many people's minds. They are not the only colorists to post into REDuser and I want to invite all of the other colorists to share their thoughts in this thread.

I hope this thread to be a resource for folks and to help give people a better understanding of the process of Color Correction and the role of the Colorist. Both of these guys have a lot of experience and they will be posting in here when they can, but let this be the starting point for the discussion.

Also, I hope it helps encourage DP's who work with Colorists to create open lines of communication and learn about the process the image goes through when it leaves the camera department.

I also want to thank Marc and Jake for taking the time to share and to help get this idea going.

David

______________________________________________________
I sent them this list of questions and here are the answers.

-Could you tell a bit about yourself and the kind of work you mainly do?

Marc,
Yes, I've been primarily a long-form colorist in LA since 1979, and have worked for about 15 different post houses on roughly 400 feature films and 60 different network TV series. I've been freelance for about 7 years now. I mainly work with Resolve, but have worked on a dozen other systems over the last few decades.

Jake,
I had been working in post since 1981. I had been working as a telecine engineer and then, slowly, I was able to make a gradual switch to a colorist. At the same time I pursued a career as a fashion photographer and a commercial director.Presently I mostly work out of my own boutique color grading shop- MOD Color. I specialize in a commercial work with occasional feature work sprinkled throughout. I also work as a freelance colorist around LA. I also still do a good bit of Remote Grading, with clients in Russia, Czech Republic , Republic of Georgia and Serbia.

-You guys spend hours in front of a screen making images look great

Marc,

Sometimes, the job is not to make the image look great -- it's to give the client the image they want. There are cases where due to photographic issues, the image can never look great, but we can almost always make it look better. 90% of the job is finding a look that tells the story and makes the producer, director, and/or cinematographer happy (depending on who's supervising the project).

Jake,
Actually I don’t spend THAT much time working. I’m quite selective with the projects I take. Which means I can spend more time working on some personal projects I’m passionate about.

-What is the important things a colorist brings to the table?

Marc,
More options, more visual ideas, and a way to perform the color-correction process in a way that works with the client's budget and schedule.

Jake,
I’m hired because people like my work, plain and simple. I’m there to help principals to get THEIR vision to the screen. If they smart, they will ask for my opinion

-What do you want to see when you open up files for a grade?-What kind of histogram? depth, sharpness, etc,

Marc,
I generally prefer a down-the-middle exposure, and it's nice to see color exposure charts when possible, even if it's just at the beginning of the day. I sometimes take a moment prior to the session to grab a few of those charts to use to set a reasonable starting point. If not, I just go with my gut based on past experience. I'm not a fan of mixed lighting, and I'd rather take an image shot "normally" and then change it in post to provide the kind of filtration and looks (extreme or otherwise) the DP is going for.

Jake,
That is something, that is purview of DP.

-What is harder to deal with, underexposure or over exposure?

Marc,
Both can be disastrous, but sometimes they're manageable. There's a lot of "it depends" involved. I often warn clients not to go beyond ISO 1200 on either Red or Alexa cameras, because they both get much too noisy (in my opinion). I had a recent project shoot some Red scenes at 6400, and it was a nightmare in post.

Jake,
It’s not a matter of harder, it’s a matter of what is possible. If you overexpose, those highlights are gone forever. Some cameras have better highlight roll off and Red with newer cameras- Weapon, newer OLPFs and better color science. Nevertheless, if you overexpose, the highlights are gone and to me noting screams more “video” than blown out highlights. Weapon is much cleaner at the bottom of the exposure and I have at my disposal the best noise reduction, that i know- Digital Vision’s DVO Clarity. So, unquestionably, I’ll take underexposure, but I’d rather have properly exposed images. Also, shooting with Tungsten lights tends to limit how far I can move the image. There is no way around the fact, that Blue channel is starved and trying to change color temperature inevitably introduce more noise. And, personally, it just looks not as good as when it is shot with the daylight. Of coarse, unless you’re specifically going for that golden look

 

[David Battistella]

-Can you talk a bit about the things you see consistently that can easily be corrected?

Marc,
Clipped highlights have bothered me for years. I'd generally rather see a smidge of details in windows and curtains and practical lamps than just a solid brick of white. One thing we can't change very well is lack of fill light. I generally tell clients to lean on the side of a little too much fill, and know that we can always add shadow in post. If an actor's face is in hard shadow, don't expect to see detail there later on. And I also like to see eyelights whenever possible. No matter how dark the scene is, if you get a sense of the character's eyes, it gives it some depth and reality that can make it work for the scene. Without that, it's just a black blob.

Jake,
The lack of consistency Set the look and stick with it. Don’t try to improve it for subsequent takes. Nothing is more frustrating, when you have a cut between two angles and they vastly different. Please try to use same type of lenses. They have a huge impact on consistency. It is very ironic, but as I can remember, with film shoots and a simple B/W video tap, I was getting very consistent exposure. Now, when everyone on set can see tan almost finished picture,at times, I find exposure all over the place...-

Based on what you have seen over the years (film to digital) what is the main difference you see in the images coming across your monitors?

Marc,
Film to digital. Not as much of a change as you might think. Pictures are pictures, and it's just about telling stories. Our range of correction has gotten wider, but it still has to start with the DP. We depend heavily on the work they do, and our job is to make them look good whenever possible.

Jake,
See above

Has digital color correction created a fix it in post culture? Is it different from film?

Marc,
To some degree, yes. I'm doing far more VFX-type fixes in color-correction these days, particularly boom removal, sign-changing, sky replacement, and so on. In general, I'd rather have a VFX specialist handle these changes, but sometimes budgets and schedules don't permit it.

Jake,
It really not that different from before. As the saying goes “will fix it in post” and that still is the truth. The difference being, clients now don’t hesitate to ask for VFX types of fixes, which now they consider it to be of color grading. Beauty fixes, sky replacements, taking out some errant objects etc what now is done routinely.

-What kind of a relationship you you have with DP’s?-What kind of a relationship would you like to have with DP’s?

Marc,
Positive, I hope! I love working with cinematographers, and I've learned a lot from all of them over the years. I have a pretty good sense of the day-to-day challenges they have on set, and whenever they encounter a problem, I think the colorist's job is to come up with solutions. I think being familiar with lighting, lenses, filters, and the limitations of cameras helps us understand where we can go in color.

Jake,
This question must be qualified by the region where the work is performed. Allow me to explain. In US, it is a simple fact, that once the camera stops rolling, production at that point is dismissed. In commercial market, the post always done by the ad agency. They supervise editing, VFX, Sound and, yes, color grading. So, overwhelmingly in US, I deal with agency producers, art directors and actual clients. In Europe is very different. Everyone defers to the director, which will often will defer to DP. DP’s in Europe are VERY involved, as they should be! For me it make for much more satisfying experience. DP and I usually on the same page and they know what they were trying to achieve. In US it’s pretty much design the look by the committee.I’d like US move more in the direction of Europe

-What are the three things (or more) a young DP needs to have on the top of their “get it right” list?

Marc,
Hmmm... don't clip the highlights. Have sufficient fill (which is to say, don't have an extreme key-to-fill ratio unless you're determined to get that look). Make sure the actors have an eyelight in dark scenes, and give them a tiny bit of backlight if possible. Avoid mixed lighting if possible. Follow all the normal camera rules (black shading, correct color temperature, etc.). That's five things, but those are pretty standard. I would also add: if you can't supervise the session, get the colorist detailed notes so that we understand the intent of the scene. If you want it blue, tell us and it will be blue.

Jake,
Exposure, composition and just because it should have a “documentary” look, you still need to light it.

-LUT or NO LUT on set?-LUT or NO LUT burned into the file?

Marc,
I don't have a problem with LUTs but I always reserve the right to duplicate the effect of the LUT and just use customized settings within the color-correction program, which will give us a little weasel-room to vary the levels if necessary. I have yet to encounter a LUT I couldn't effectively match, to the point where we generally improved upon what they initially saw in dailies. And I've had many, many sessions where we threw the LUT out the window and just did it all from scratch. The great jazz artist Duke Ellington once said: "if it sounds good, it is good," and I think the same philosophy applies to color. If it looks good, it is good -- and it doesn't matter whether you used a LUT or a powergrade or magic sprinkles or just hard work. Note also that canned looks or even pre-made LUTs won't necessarily work once you see a project edited together in context, particularly on a large calibrated display. That's a whole different world than seeing a project one shot at a time on a hectic set, viewed under a black tent, under less-than-optimum conditions.

Jake,
It’s not up to me.
With RAW it doesn’t matter. With something like Prores or DNxHR recording, Log images recording, no LUTs

 

[vincent kardasik]

This is a really cool thread! Thanks to the three of you for your time!

 

[chase kempf]

great thread, i've been wanting to ask these questions to a grader for years. very interesting on the fill and highlights

 

[Eren Ozkural]

Excellent thread! Thank you for taking the time to do this. I'd love it if you kept it going.

 

[Martin Stevens]

Great thread!

 

[David Battistella]

Thanks all!


Ok.

Jump in with more questions folks and I hope some of our other colorists can jump in here and share their thoughts as well.

David

 

[joey richey]

great thread david! can't wait for all of the content here!

 

[Randall Weatherington]

I have run across this occasionally during my career: If one is even remotely color blind, swallow pride, admit it, and defer to proven color grader. Otherwise one WILL get busted, and it could be very embarrassing.

 

[M Most]

With RAW it doesn’t matter.

Since this is Reduser, I'm going to dispute that because it's not accurate.

With most formats other than Redcode, the debayer process usually does a reasonably faithful direct debayer from the RAW data. In most cases this yields an RGB image that appears low in saturation, primarily because the gamut of the captured data is larger than the typical display, regardless of whether that's Rec709 or P3. You can recover "normal" saturation for these display types by either using a color matrix (which is often built into a LUT, as it usually is for Alexa when you build a LUT using the Arri web tools) or by pushing saturation in a color grading program. The former is a much better way of doing it because the matrix is aware of the processor characteristics as well as the display characteristics, and does a transform that remaps the gamut correctly and yields proper hues. The latter just pushes what's there in a uniform way, adding potential noise and not correcting for hue differences between the two gamuts. With Red files, you are ALWAYS applying a color matrix as part of the debayer unless you specifically select Camera RGB in the Red decode settings, which almost nobody these days does. In addition, you select a gamma curve, which is sometimes RedlogFilm, but is commonly one of the Redgammas. All of these things are essentially LUTs, so saying you "don't need a LUT with RAW" is a misnomer because at least with Red, you are always using one as part of the debayer, whether you realize it or not.

As for the use of LUTs with other formats that are recorded or debayered to some RGB log coded image, I would counter that although they are not technically necessary, they often provide a better transformation of the log coded original to the display format than other, manual methods. There are colorists who use the lift gain and gamma controls - usually with pretty extreme settings - to grade log coded material. And they often get good results, particularly if they are very experienced. However, those controls are scaled to expect RGB originals that are essentially in video gamma space, and do not really work properly with log coded imagery, in which there are usually no values anywhere near black, and very few values anywhere near white. The result is that the product of this approach often has crushed blacks (because that's the only way to get proper contrast), clipped whites (same reason), and "flat" faces, because the fleshtones do not have enough dynamic range to be affected properly by those controls. Using a LUT that is developed to properly implement an "s" curve that is appropriate to the particularly log curve used by the camera is a better way of "normalizing" the image for proper display, as it is mathematically sensible and completely consistent. This does not mean that you simply apply a LUT and everything is perfect, far from it. LUT's have expected input values that correspond to predetermined output values. If an image is overexposed or underexposed, that exposure needs to be corrected (usually using either an offset or an exposure control in the grading software) prior to applying the LUT so that the LUT can properly do what it's designed to do. Most LUT's basically implement a curve based correction, so if one wants to substitute a custom curve, that is an acceptable substitute, and a number of colorists (including myself) do use that approach on occasion. But using a curve is also essentially using a LUT. Experience teaches you where in the color path to put that transform, and what to do to the input values to allow it to work properly.

 

[Stacey Spears]

Avoid mixed lighting if possible.

Though, I probably need some context on Marc's comments about mixed lighting, this is something where HDR really shines. No pun intended.

 

[David Battistella]

Mr. Most,

Thank you very much for posting into this thread!

I'm digesting that last post and im digging it.

David

 

[Kwan Khan]

Thanks David

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Though, I probably need some context on Marc's comments about mixed lighting, this is something where HDR really shines. No pun intended.

Mixed lighting, unless purposely and specifically chosen, designed and controlled, messes up colors and fixing the outcome so the picture looks as it should, is not exactly fun.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Great idea for a thread David!

Like any creative job classification in this industry, if you ask three people how they go about doing something, quite often you will get three different responses, especially if there is a component of subjectivity involved. The beauty in that is it provides a greater learning experience for everyone. There are some things that simply don't have black and white answers, and why finding the "right" way to do something is not always possible. There may not be a "right" way, rather different ways of arriving at an end goal.

I look forward to this discussion because I expect to see what I saw in books like The Art and Technique of Digital Color Correction. Varied opinions and approaches on how to achieve things with color.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I have run across this occasionally during my career: If one is even remotely color blind, swallow pride, admit it, and defer to proven color grader. Otherwise one WILL get busted, and it could be very embarrassing.

I worked with a music video producer on about 35 projects over a period of four years in the late 1980s, and only at the end did he (reluctantly) admit to me he was color blind! He was such a master of BS, he had had me completely convinced he was making realistic color judgements when he'd ask for "more red" or "too saturated." But we both laughed about it, and he admitted that after our first few sessions, he trusted me not to screw it up too much, no matter what he said.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Mixed lighting, unless purposely and specifically chosen, designed and controlled, messes up colors and fixing the outcome so the picture looks as it should, is not exactly fun.

My problem with mixed lighting is that it kind of "pre-contaminates" the picture in ways that you may not be able to see with the naked eye on set, but look really terrible on the monitor. About 10 years ago, I did an indie feature that had a long dolly scene in a hospital corridor that wound up in a patient room with a dying woman on the bed. The sheets were white, the nurse's uniform was white, and the hospital equipment was (mostly) white... only we had 9000-degree sunlight blasting in on the left, warm incandescent lighting above us, and green florescent spill coming in from the hallway. The problem is, the director was insistent on having the nurse's uniform and sheets white. It was a nightmare, since white didn't actually exist in this set. I almost had to tie the secondaries into a knot in order to force the room to be at least in the vague vicinity of normal.

I don't have a problem if a cinematographer makes a deliberate decision to go with mixed lighting for a specifically weird look, as long as they won't ever need to get normal whites and linear color out of it. It's going to be skewed in unpredictable directions... but I have to admit, that can work for certain kinds of scenes, particularly intense drama, fight scenes, horror, and so on.

 

[jake blackstone]

Since this is Reduser, I'm going to dispute that because it's not accurate.

With most formats other than Redcode, the debayer process usually does a reasonably faithful direct debayer from the RAW data. In most cases this yields an RGB image that appears low in saturation, primarily because the gamut of the captured data is larger than the typical display, regardless of whether that's Rec709 or P3. You can recover "normal" saturation for these display types by either using a color matrix (which is often built into a LUT, as it usually is for Alexa when you build a LUT using the Arri web tools) or by pushing saturation in a color grading program. The former is a much better way of doing it because the matrix is aware of the processor characteristics as well as the display characteristics, and does a transform that remaps the gamut correctly and yields proper hues. The latter just pushes what's there in a uniform way, adding potential noise and not correcting for hue differences between the two gamuts. With Red files, you are ALWAYS applying a color matrix as part of the debayer unless you specifically select Camera RGB in the Red decode settings, which almost nobody these days does. In addition, you select a gamma curve, which is sometimes RedlogFilm, but is commonly one of the Redgammas. All of these things are essentially LUTs, so saying you "don't need a LUT with RAW" is a misnomer because at least with Red, you are always using one as part of the debayer, whether you realize it or not.

As for the use of LUTs with other formats that are recorded or debayered to some RGB log coded image, I would counter that although they are not technically necessary, they often provide a better transformation of the log coded original to the display format than other, manual methods. There are colorists who use the lift gain and gamma controls - usually with pretty extreme settings - to grade log coded material. And they often get good results, particularly if they are very experienced. However, those controls are scaled to expect RGB originals that are essentially in video gamma space, and do not really work properly with log coded imagery, in which there are usually no values anywhere near black, and very few values anywhere near white. The result is that the product of this approach often has crushed blacks (because that's the only way to get proper contrast), clipped whites (same reason), and "flat" faces, because the fleshtones do not have enough dynamic range to be affected properly by those controls. Using a LUT that is developed to properly implement an "s" curve that is appropriate to the particularly log curve used by the camera is a better way of "normalizing" the image for proper display, as it is mathematically sensible and completely consistent. This does not mean that you simply apply a LUT and everything is perfect, far from it. LUT's have expected input values that correspond to predetermined output values. If an image is overexposed or underexposed, that exposure needs to be corrected (usually using either an offset or an exposure control in the grading software) prior to applying the LUT so that the LUT can properly do what it's designed to do. Most LUT's basically implement a curve based correction, so if one wants to substitute a custom curve, that is an acceptable substitute, and a number of colorists (including myself) do use that approach on occasion. But using a curve is also essentially using a LUT. Experience teaches you where in the color path to put that transform, and what to do to the input values to allow it to work properly.

Mike. A couple of points right away. i think you or I misunderstood the original question. The question was "LUT or NO LUT on set?-LUT or NO LUT burned into the file"
So, as i understood the question, if someone feels like using LUT on the camera during the shoot, then what do i care? That LUT doesn't somehow gets burned into a file, as it is RAW. That is all. I think you misunderstood my answer as would i use a LUT for grading something like RLF or Log-C or S-Log or V-Log? Well, the answer for all these examples is still a no. I'd be using an IDT transform
So, I'm not sure what you are questioning here...
You are really need to direct your ire toward someone like Clark Muller http://www.incendio.tv/artists/clark from Incendio. He's notorious in refusing to use any kind of LUTs

 

[Nick Gardner]

"avoid mixed lighting" that's bull shit. I personally often like daylight through windows, and tungsten on faces. I have never had a colorist have a problem with it. I have done dozens of hours of period pieces where it's day light and firelight. If you are going for some unified color temp, then yeah sure that's bad, but the two play nice together and there is nothing wrong with that. If you are talking about flouros, and leds, and tungsten, and a lava lamp, then yeah, I get your problem ;-)

Nick

 

[Corey_O]

Sharing is caring..........guidelines which every colorist will appreciate. Nice idea David and excellent info Marc & Jake.
Might be a good idea to screen shot this for future reference.

-What are the three things (or more) a young DP needs to have on the top of their “get it right” list?

Marc,

don't clip the highlights.

Have sufficient fill (which is to say, don't have an extreme key-to-fill ratio unless you're determined to get that look).

Make sure the actors have an eyelight in dark scenes, and give them a tiny bit of backlight if possible.

Avoid mixed lighting if possible.

Follow all the normal camera rules (black shading, correct color temperature, etc.).

That's five things, but those are pretty standard. I would also add: if you can't supervise the session, get the colorist detailed notes so that we understand the intent of the scene. If you want it blue, tell us and it will be blue.