The Curse of Ultra Primes

[Brent J. Craig]

To echo David's comments, in TV commercial shooting the cinematographer is very rarely involved in the post processes. If something has to look a certain way you are better off doing it in camera than hoping the ad agency remembers to do it in post.

Who is going to get hired for the next job - the DP whose dailies made the star look glamorous, the product look perfect and inviting , had subtle grads where needed, and lacked the harshness of digital video - or the DP whose dailies were flat and harsh but were great raw material for post?

 

[Cail Young]

We pulled out a #2 Black Promist last week for a night shot at the request of the DP. Looked brilliant!

 

[Zack Birlew]

I wanted to use a fog filter for this flashback scene I filmed a few weeks ago and I was sure that it was the best look for it, however, knowing that digital processes could be done to emulate filters, particularly fog, in post, I decided to film it clean. I didn't have enough time to do tests beforehand, this was a "one night to get it" kind of deal, so we filmed the scene clean and when I brought it into post and started playing around with it, I realized that the scene didn't really need fog to enhance everything as it already looked naturally smoky thanks to the f/stop being 1.2 and the natural haze in the air. Had I actually used the filter, which probably would have looked okay on the small camera LCD on set, I probably would have ended up with a foggy mess later and been stuck with it.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, obviously you can't judge what diffusion filter to use if all you have is a tiny camera LCD image to look at. This is why you shoot tests in prep when shooting film, and why, if you are shooting HD, you want a good, large-ish reference HD monitor on set, like a 24". I would never make decisions on diffusion filtration based on a tiny video camera viewfinder image -- if that's all I had to work with, I'd have done tests in prep or based the filtering on experience. But as you say, when in doubt, it's always easier to add it in post rather than make a wrong guess on set.

The typical diffusion strengths I tend to use are so light that it's hard to make a mistake in using them, they'll generally never look too heavy.

I think a lot of this discussion is biased around how much control you'll have in the post phase. A lot of DP's like me may or may not be around for the final post and if we're shooting narrative, with hours of footage being shot daily, doing some sort of post diffusion in post on a daily basis isn't going to happen.

 

[Zack Birlew]

True, I just thought it was just an appropriate example. Don't get me wrong, I too want to try and get the look in camera for all the same reasons you've listed. Why take up more time and money in post right? Plus, I still don't think post filters change the image like an actual element would (ie. post lens flares versus using anamorphics in the first place). My fog filter for instance was a little strong as it was a Cokin filter meant for an effect but would I have been able to get just that right amount of foggy haze on the street lights in post? Probably not and it probably wouldn't have distorted quite the same way either.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

This is one reason why you carry a few strengths of the same filter, so you have the option of going lighter than you originally thought. Most consumer still camera filters don't come in light enough strengths though -- the lightest tend to be much heavier than anything used in a typical movie.

If you look at a 1/8 Black Frost or a 1/8 HD Classic Soft, for example, they seem to hardly be doing anything. Which is about right for images meant to be seen on a large screen.

 

[Jason Osterday]

How common is a 24" monitor on set? I see a lot of the 17" and 20" sony sets or just older CRTs that are 7 to 14".

 

[D Fuller]

Personally I use the Schneider Classic Soft filters for pretty much all photography with humans except FX plates I know will have post work or compositing. They do not really degrade contrast but just soften fine line detail. They do this without affecting resolution much if at all, remember resolution and acute sharpness (micro-contrast) are not the same. I also prefer the standard speeds to supers though I feel ultras can actually too harsh is some situations.

Evin, I have always used filters on film, but seldom with the Red because I seem to have less confidence in judging the look on the set. Between the processing yet to come in post and the relatively small monitors on set, I'm never as sure about the look as I'd like. How do you monitor the effect of filtration on set?

 

[Rich Schaefer]

As a Shooter, I say do it in camera. I have had way too many shows where in the end the finished look sucked!... and I was disappointed and it could have been better. Right now, I have a national spot that runs all the time and I cringe every time I see it.

Often post says they would do something and they run out of time or money or they forget. Sometimes, they are great editors and average colorists... (I guess I miss the pro-colorists).

They hire me for the way I make footage look. I try to make it look the way the Director and I dreamed/planed for.