Wonderful example - Page 3 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Techniques for Independent Production

Techniques for Independent Production
The challenges of creating Digital Cinema and other narrative forms.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 12th, 2002, 09:21 AM   #31
Warden
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Clearwater, FL
Posts: 8,267
The days of editing and color correcting for just broadcast are over. I have clients that have me correct (color, gamma, etc) a piece different ways for different uses. If the project isn't going to broadcast we stretch the black level, gamma, white clip etc to fit the medium. The 7.5 IRE black level is only for broadcast. Why lose part of your range if the piece will never be broadcast? I correct one way for web use and another for broadcast and even another for DVD. It's like giving a painter only one size brush.

I don't do much work for transfer to film. But I would correct DV for film differently than DV for web.

Jeff
Jeff Donald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2002, 10:48 AM   #32
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,244
Jeff, you bring up and excellent point. I hadn't thought of it, but you're right. It depends on the final form in which the piece is being exhibited.
Jay Gladwell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2002, 12:39 PM   #33
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 1,929
Rob Lohman had me right, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. To restate and rephrase, For digital video, viewing the video signal on a computer monitor is sufficient to make the assessment that the material originated on DV (not film) simply by observing contrast flatness.

Of course, I am also of the school that a properly calibrated high-resolution production monitor (NTSC or PAL, depending on where you hail from) is an essential tool for shooting and editing. On my editing desk I have twin 17" Viewsonic computer monitors and twin 14" SONY NTSC video monitors for my work.

When it comes to digital video, however, what you see on your computer screen (given that your system is gamma-calibrated and the material you're working with has a dynamic range of 24 bits per pixel as DV does) is the truest representation of the video signal--truer that the DA converted signal you'll see on NTSC output, which, in systems math terms, just adds one (or several) more transform matrix (or matrices) to the signal pathway chain.

It should be pointed out that most video production houses, those facilities riddled with big expensive NTSC monitors--TV stations comprise the largest segment of this class of facilities--still work in analog video.

Post facilities that work in high definition, however--e.g., CG work for film or 24P video--tend not have lots of NTSC or even HD TV monitors sitting around. These folks work off computer screens.

If it's in the digital domain, and the material is of standard dynamic range (e.g., 24 bits per pixel), your computer monitor is plenty sufficient to observe the whole true signal.
__________________
All the best,
Robert K S

Search DVinfo.net for quick answers | The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors
Robert Knecht Schmidt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2002, 04:14 PM   #34
Warden
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Clearwater, FL
Posts: 8,267
If your work is intended for broadcast, an NTSC Production monitor is used (along with a waveform monitor and vectorscope) for quality checks and final approval. Computer RGB differs from DV NTSC in color space and the monitors require different phosphors. Different phosphors reproduce different colors. I don't know of any post house (digital or analog) that uses computer monitors for final approval of work intended for broadcast.

Work destined for film output may be a different matter. Film recorders and their associated support equipment are not my area of expertise.

Jeff
Jeff Donald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18th, 2002, 03:35 PM   #35
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Borås, Sweden
Posts: 167
Robert. My point was more in the fact that you are watching a compressed (lossy compression at that) stream than what monitor you were looking at (sorry if this didn't come through clearly). Compressing video involves a lot of messing about with the pixels, and colourcorrection and foremost, judging the colours compared to a video or film media usually goes right out the window.

I'm definately not good enough to judge if the image is flatter on a highly compressed quicktime stream. Hell, im not sure im good enough to judge it on a "proper" media =)

/Henrik
__________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henrik "HuBBa" Bengtsson, Imaginara Fotographia,http://www.imaginara.se
Henrik Bengtsson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18th, 2002, 04:34 PM   #36
Warden
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Clearwater, FL
Posts: 8,267
The rotoscoping questions and answers got split out to here http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&threadid=5564

Jeff
Jeff Donald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18th, 2002, 05:40 PM   #37
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, England
Posts: 87
Not entirely... when creating computer gen'd images for output to film or HD, 24bit per pixel (8bit flat) colour space is NOT correct for matching to a film output. What you need is to work in a higher colour space (i.e. 10bit log, 12bit flat, 16bit flat or HDR), and to simulate what it would look like when imaged to film, you must use a LUT (or Look-Up-Table) to alter your 8bit flat display to mimick that of a 12bit flat or 10bit log of tiff or cineon out to be laser imaged to film or dumped to HD.

/Adrian


<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Knecht Schmidt : Rob Lohman
Post facilities that work in high definition, however--e.g., CG work for film or 24P video--tend not have lots of NTSC or even HD TV monitors sitting around. These folks work off computer screens.

If it's in the digital domain, and the material is of standard dynamic range (e.g., 24 bits per pixel), your computer monitor is plenty sufficient to observe the whole true signal. -->>>
__________________
Adrian van der Park
VFX modeler
London, England
Adrian van der Park is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18th, 2002, 07:00 PM   #38
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 1,929
I don't disagree, Adrian, and I stand by my statement that a computer monitor is sufficient to evaluate the dynamic range of DV footage.
__________________
All the best,
Robert K S

Search DVinfo.net for quick answers | The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors
Robert Knecht Schmidt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2003, 08:13 PM   #39
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 126
I dunno about MB. It wouldn't put those tacky, ramdom fake scratches on the image like you get with the stock Quicktime effect.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : In the credits, Final Cut Pro is listed. My best guess is it's Magic Bullet http://www.theorphanage.com/ It may have been done with another AE plugin, but it looks like MB to me.

Jeff -->>>
__________________
Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. - Albert Einstein

http://advaloreminternational.com
Victor Muh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2003, 09:07 AM   #40
Membership Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Brazil
Posts: 78
Well just finished watching the movie. Great piece, although the one thing that really bothered me about the movie, technically was how the filmmaker gave the video a "film look". Whatever process he used, it gave the film a too blurry look, like as if he shot it with a 360 degree shutter. It looks similiar to 1/30 sec. shutter which annoys the hell out of me.

It definitely does not look like film. It reminds me of some cheapie DV commercials that air here in Vancouver, most noticeably those annoying Shaw Cable commercials. They employ the same smeary look and overblown highlights that always look bad. Im just commenting on the technical aspect of the piece. It was well lit and all, but the annoying film look really bugged the hell out of me. It would have looked alot crisper had the filmmakers used a straight de-interlace, without mucking around with the frame rate or whatever.

It was a good piece overall so no negative comments here. Anyone else notice the smeary look of the piece?
Davi Dortas is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Techniques for Independent Production

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:29 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network