I know there has already been a debate over whether these cards are necessary...some people say all you need to do is put a gel over a white board to achieve the same effect.

But having the set in hand, all I can say is that I'm glad I bought it. The set includes a handy case that'll slide nicely into a production bag... has two sets of cards, one mini set with a neck strap, and a large set connected on a little chain so they won't get loose and disappear...a pen and pen holder with "Shot Notes" stationery... and all the cards are coated with tough plastic. All in all, it's a nice, durable, well-organized, compact kit.

And the most important thing is...they do make a nice warm image.

I've had my warm cards for 5 months now. Handy little things. The pen they give you is junk though, but I wasn't expecting staionary anyways :) I also opted for the green card.

What sizes are the large and small cards?

Can you put some photos online, John? Or e-mail them to me?

Thanks!

Dylan,

The large set is 15X23 cm (sorry, don't have a ruler with inches) and the small set is 9X14 cm. I got the Warm Cards Plus set, so it includes "Warm" in degrees of .5, 1, 2, and 3. And also a "Minus Green" card for fluorescent lighting.

Rob,

You can see photos of the set and of the results at the Warm Cards web site. (http://www.warmcards.com) Check it out and if you want more detail than those photos provide, drop me an e-mail and I'll send you some examples.

Unfortunately the example photos on their site are obviously stock photos they've just colour corrected to approximate what the effect of the cards would be. Pretty lame, yet I still like the idea of what they do and how the product looks. So I may try my own version and if that becomes tedious just buy the Warm Cards.

Simon and Rob,

I'll try to whip up some examples and post them somewhere this week.

<<<-- Originally posted by John Locke : Simon and Rob,

I'll try to whip up some examples and post them somewhere this week. -->>>

That's good of you.

No problem, Simon. Wednesday, I'll shoot the same subject using the in-camera white balance settings and also each card...then I'll post them side-by-side for a comparison.

Check back in a couple of days.

<<Wednesday, I'll shoot the same subject using the in-camera white balance settings and also each card.>>

John, it would be nice if that subject is a caucasion in a blue or white shirt. A color chart would be great.

Wayne and Simon,

One of the other wranglers, Adrian, stopped by today to help out and we shot two sets of tests. One is an outdoor overcast set, and the other is an indoor natural light test (shot by a window). Both of these will naturally be bluer than a bright sunny day, so I'd rather hold off on posting the results until we get a sunny day test set shot, too. Unfortunately, there's no sunshine today and probably not tomorrow.


So, hold off for a couple of days. Results coming soon.

Okay...test results are up. Click here (http://zchildress.com/warm_cards/index.html) to check them out.

(By the way...meet one of the wranglers, Adrian, in his screen debut!)

Far better samples than those on Warm Cards' own web site. The ones on the site appear to be the same photo "warmed" with an app like PhotoShop.

Thanks John, very interesting. Warm card 3 reminds me a bit of Kodachrome Super8, the nice orange look. ;-)

1/2 & 1 look to be the most useful, I do like the look of these. But what is going on with the contrast? All the shots with the warm cards have reduced the contrast slightly. It can't be just due to the natural light changing as they are reduced on all locations. Or is it?

Thanks, Jay. Odd that they would do that, isn't it?

Simon, the thing that I think is most interesting to me is how the number 2 warm card consistently alters the hue slightly (more yellow). When you look at the cards themselves, they seem to be the same shade of blue but progressively darker. Obviously, number 2 is a bit off.

Sorry about the poor contrast. I have three preset actions I've made for PhotoShop to increase contrast, brighten a bit to account for the different gamma between Macs and PCs, and sharpen using unsharp mask. Each preset does all three in varying strengths. I just guesstimated which preset to use for each image (obviously overdoing it on some)...not really worrying about the image quality. Usually I'd have to fiddle with it after using the action, but in this case I just wanted to see the difference in hue.

We always assume that things work in a linear fashion. What you may me experiencing is a curve in the WB adjust scale. Repeating this with several XL1's might confirm this.

Now all we need John is a minus green example, when you have time of course. ;-)

Sorry for the newbie q - what's the proper usage for these cards and why?

The general idea is to white balance using these cards instead of a white card. Tricks the camera and results in a "warmer" image that some people find more closely replicates reality in some lighting conditions. Purely subjective though.

Simon...

Actually, Adrian and I tried to do those...but it turns out the fluorescents in my building's stairwells and hallways are daylight balanced. How's that for ironic?

I'll see what I can come up with.

Mark, these cards allow you to adjust the white balance so that you can "warm" the image. Video can be somewhat blue, making people look a bit ruddy. By warming them up, it creates better skin tones.

If I were shooting a scene on a Florida beach, they'd be just the ticket. But if I want to shoot a scene in a cold climate, emphasizing the coldness, I wouldn't want to warm the colors.

Depends on the situation.

(Rob...you beat me to it. Posted your answer while I was typing mine ;)

Mark:

I am by no means a pro, but here is what I have gathered so far on the use of cards. I hope some of the pros on the forum will correct me if I'm wrong.

Color temperatures of different kinds of light differ. It basically means that white in daylight is different from white in lightbulb light, flourescent light etc. Your eyes and brain are smart enough to compensate for this, but not a videocamera.

If you use a "home DV" camera, it will often be in auto whitebalance mode. If you look at footage taken in daylight versus footage from indoors in artificial light, there is usually a red shift in indoor shooting meaning that the image will look "too warm". Skin tones will be very reddish etc.

Thus you have the white balance function in the camera. Usually there is a button (in manual mode) that will allow you to set the white balance ie. tell the camera what white is in this light.

The easy way to set it is to hold up a white sheet such as a piece of white paper in front of the camera and hit the white balance button. That will tell the camera what white "looks like" in this particular light. Every time the lighting changes you will have to recalibrate using this procedure.

Now back to the cards... Some people find that using correct white balance will produce images that are slightly "cold" in color. Then you can use white balance cards that are not quite white in order to "cheat" the camera into shooting warmer footage than a true white balance would produce.

The cards have a shift towards blue. The 0 card will be neutral white while the higher the card value, the bigger the blue tint on it.

If you go back and look at the posted examples, you will se a definate change in color temperatur as cards of an increasing value are used.

I hope that explains it a bit.

Hans Henrik

Hehe. I love this forum. From the time it took from me reading Marks question and till I had finished typing my reply, 2 other people had already answered the question :-)

Hans Henrik

Hans is right - this forum rocks.

Thanks for the explanations everyone.

A few thoughts.

Number One: when we shoot film or video, the idea is to create pictures that flatter our subjects (unless we have an ulterior motive). This is what film people have known for years. Therefore, film is manufactured with a bias toward magenta for warmth. (This is a very simple explanation)

Video, on the other hand, was meant to recreate reality, and what it ended up with was a somewhat "cool" or blue bias. Recently, that bias has been recognized and improvements made to the standard set-up on most cameras. My Sony PD150 has a much warmer image than the first Betacam I operated many years ago.

I think some of you hit the nail on the head. In John's pix, what the normal white balanced pictures need is an adjustment to the contrast more than a "warming" with white balance. Take one of the uncorrected stills into Photoshop and see if you can improve the quality of the picture with levels or curves.

In general, I see too much of a shift toward yellow in the stills. Just my opinion.

When we talk about warming up a picture, what we are usually refering to, is moving skin tones toward a warmer shade. The problem with "fooling" the white balance of the camera, is that it makes a global shift in the chroma, so that everything "warms" up. This is not always desireable. For instance, using blue to warm a face means that a blue suit or shirt will shift toward brown.

What you are trying to do with the warm cards is what film people do in timing or color correction. But it is much better to do this in post where you can make critical decisions in a dark environment, and compare pictures you shot on Monday with pictures from Friday. But if you have already made global corrections to the picture, you now have to eliminate the correction and try to establish a "standard," which is what you have effectively eliminated with the use of the warm cards.

Remember that all white items are not created equal. It is best to settle on a white card and use that one card consistently. The original Kodak "grey cards" had a white side that was very handy. These cards apparently are being phased out by Kodak for the much more expensive "Grey card Plus." But this is a good card to use, as it presents you with white, grey and black on the same surface. Shoot a bit of the card at the head of the scene to use with color correction tools in post.

Professional shooters have been using "cheats" for white balance as long as there have been Betacams. Most have abandoned the cheats for (1) setting up the cameras with a more favorable gamma (2) fix it in post. But certainly many new people are experimenting with the white cards. I think they will abandon them after a period of time.

Just my 2¢

Sheesh...tough crowd. Thought I could get away with slapping them up there quickly as long as they showed the hue change. ;)

Okay...the first group, "Outdoor Sunny Day," has been reuploaded. These shots are pristine...straight out of the camera condition except for resizing. They were taken with the camera in automatic (not full "green box" auto) exposure. No adjustments of any kind have been made to them.

Another thing to bear in mind is the advantage one has in altering the "look" in camera. Too much emphasis is placed on doing things in post. If you feel a "warmed" up image is what you're after for a particular project then best to try and get that look right from the start. You don't after all want to have to render all your footage and loose any quality (assuming you stay with the DV codec) if all you require a slight warming up of the image.

After all, look how for years DPs have been altering the look of film in camera.

Now, if only someone could figure out how to do pre-flashing on in-camera DV.

(I know I've over simplified the above statements and there are other issues to take into consideration. But I hope you get my point.)

<<<After all, look how for years DPs have been altering the look of film in camera.>>>

As a matter of fact, the trend recently has been to do the "altering" of the look in post, due to the possibilities of working with the intermediary in digital color correction. Witness films such as "Amelie." "Oh Brother." You can expect much more of this in the future. For "newbies" who are becoming aware of the possibilities of filters and color correction, certainly experimenting with cheats, such as using warm cards is a valid part of the educational process. But be aware of the limitations. Especially if you cannot schlep a professional monitor on all your shooting safaris.

Simon-X:

Please contact me via e-mail, regarding the note in my sig file below -- thanks,

<<<-- Originally posted by Wayne Orr : <<<After all, look how for years DPs have been altering the look of film in camera.>>>

As a matter of fact, the trend recently has been to do the "altering" of the look in post, due to the possibilities of working with the intermediary in digital color correction. Witness films such as "Amelie." "Oh Brother." You can expect much more of this in the future. For "newbies" who are becoming aware of the possibilities of filters and color correction, certainly experimenting with cheats, such as using warm cards is a valid part of the educational process. But be aware of the limitations. Especially if you cannot schlep a professional monitor on all your shooting safaris. -->>>

Very true. I just feel there's too much reliance on doing things in post without bearing this in mind when actually shooting.

In all your examples the DPs had planned to alter the film in post, consequently they shot the film with this in mind and altered their methods to better achieve their chosen look.

We don't, after all, want to be like George Lucas and think we can do everything in post. That way just looks rubbish.

Warm cards are just one tool in your arsenal. Some projects do not have the time and, or the budget to do fixes in post. The loss of quality due to rendering is also an issue for many people.

Post is also a tool that allows us to adjust parameters way beyond what can be achieved in the camera. The trick is to know which is the best method to apply to your project. However, I am a firm believer in shooting it correctly in the camera if at all possible. This usually saves my clients time and money. But estimate wrong and the improper WB or other in camera effects can lead to costly fixes in post.

Jumping in on Simon and Wayne's discussion:

I have just returned from a telecine session for a short film that I shot a couple of years ago (yup, two whole years, how painful is that). We shot on Super 35, and about six months ago we timed our answer print. During that process I gave the timer notes on the printer lights, which are any or all combinations of red, green and blue. Bringing one down will change the hue, bringing all down will darken the image. The timer goes back and strikes another print, you come in a few days later and give another series of notes, and eventually you say "good enough". And that's about all you can do with a film print.

In today's session on a DaVinci, we made further adjustments to density and color value, but they were immediately viewable. We also adjusted color values to particular sections of the frame, we dropped in "power windows" that selectively darkened parts of the image, we rode density levels within shots. We created subtle changes in saturation and tone that occurred over multiple shots in a sequence.

In a perfect world, some of these fixes would have happened on set. In reality, few DP's have the luxury to fix everything to their satisfaction. Digital post allows one the opportunity to finish your job, sometimes to augment your original vision in ways that are unlikely or impossible to achieve on set for one reason or another (in my world, it's usually budgetary!)

There's a tremendous amount of power in this process. The important thing is that it remain in the appropriate hands--if the DP is to be trusted to capture the visuals, he/she should be the one to see them through to completion. Shooting flat-lit elements on green screen and having computer artists process them into whatever they choose to is filmmaking by committee, and a sad turn of events.

The digital era of filmmaking brings many wonderful and exciting possibilities as I have described above (couldn't be happier with what we did today, and after two years my original vision is finally realized!) but the "dark side" looms. And the fact remains that the better the original material, the better it will be once it goes through the knob-twiddling; polishing a turd just nets you a shinier turd.

To add to Charles' perfect notes: one can also try to make it "too"
perfect. Fiddle with it too much. But overal I think we have amazing
post tools available. I've had the pleasure (which is quite rare
in this country) to see some Da Vinci sessions on last years IBC
here. It is an amazing system for color corrections. I could not
believe what they could do in a matter of minutes/seconds.
And they also did it on HD footage which I was watching on
a professional 16:9 HD monitor.... that was just sweet to watch!

Hi there people.

I'm really iterested in getting these cards.

However, would I get the digital pack ($45) or the regualar pack with large and small for $65?

I'm using a 3ccd mini dv cam, so I guess the $45 version, right? What would I need bigger ones for?

Does anyone know how long this company takes to post them internationally? Thanks very much :)

Hello Yonathan,

I had mine sent to Japan, and I think it took about 10 days from order to delivery.

I got the small and large kit...and turns out I use the large most of the time. Just my preference.

thanks very much for that info John. I'm still not sure which kit to go for, but cheers for the info :)

Yonathan, just putting in my two cents: I would opt for the larger set. It's always best to have more than you need, rather than need more and not have it.

The smaller cards will always require you to get closer in order to get the proper reading (fill the screen). The larger cards will afford you the "elbow room" the smaller ones won't.

cheers Jay.

I still don't completely udnerstand the concept actually...

This is what I udnerstand so far:

Everytime you arrive on a new location with diferent light, you should look at the colour and then re set the white balance using the approrpriate warm card, whichever makes the image look nicest.

This is done by clicking set white balance, at which time on my sony it flashes for a few seconds until its got the white balance and then its all done. so during this time, I need to hold up the card to cover 90% of the screen, right? so why not just hold the small one close up? Or does it have to be at a distance? I'm sure im midunderstood about soething here. thanks for all your help! :)

I made my own. They work great.

In CorelDraw, Photoshop or whatever, just print out card stock colored with the following CMYK (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow & Black)values (in percentages):

Warm 1: C/15 M/2 K5

Warm 2: C/20 M/10 K10

Warm 1/2: C/7 M1/K2

Minus Green (works great removing flourescent tint): C/10 Y/10 K2

1/2 Minus Green: C/5 Y/5/K1

Or, if you enjoy that blue video look, just white balance to white.

Charles:


Thanks for the info. I'm just not sure, I man, would they really work aswell as he warm cards? the largest I can print is A4, would it really have the same effect?

Yonathan:

I don't know what A-4 is. I did two sets, one 8 1/2 X 11 inches, the other half that size. Anything larger would be a problem for my camera bag.

As far as doing the same job... I admit I estimated the values. But I did so by comparing what I printed out to those on the retail set. My cost on the set I made was less than two dollars (including the lamination). The retail set is $90.00. You decide.

Mine work great.

Yes, Yonathan, you've got the basics of it. Although I fill 100% of the screen, not wanting to leave anything to chance.

The use of such cards, with maybe the exception of the minus green, is to enhance (warm) the image's overall tone. Many people don't like the "cool" image that is had with digital video. Hence, they look for ways to "warm" it up a little.

The problem is, of course, when you warm the flesh tone using the cards, you warm everything. And in some situations, you may not want everything "warm."

In a "dramatic/narrative" video, you might have shot some exteriors, or interiors for that matter with natural light) in the late afternoon or very early evening when the sun's color temperature was "warm." You could, with testing, shoot the following shots the next day, earlier in the day using the warm cards to approximate the "warmth" (color temperature) of the material you had shoot the evening before--just one example.

The uses of such cards are limited by your taste and your imgination.

Thanks.

For the video I'm making I can barely picture one scene where I wouldn't want vibrant, saturated and vivid colours...

It's mostly set in the Caribbean, on beaches, dirt roads, etc... lots of sunrises, sunsets aswell as mid day shots in the heat of the day. So I guess that warm cards and filters are the way to go? :)

The code works like a charm for the warm 1 and 2. The warm 1/2 is coming out almost purple. I haven't tested it on my monitor yet.

To convert to RGB from CMYK go to colorsnob

http://www.bauser.com/websnob/color/cmyk2rgb.htm?C1=7&M1=1&Y1=&K1=2&C2=&M2=&Y2=&K2=&C3=&M3=&Y3=&K3=&C4=&M4=&Y4=&K4=&C5=&M5=&Y5=&K5=&C6=&M6=&Y6=&K6=&C7=&M7=&Y7=&K7=&C8=&M8=&Y8=&K8=

It'll give you the hex codes for RGB

Edit
I changed the value for magenta to 2 for the 1/2 and I got a better result. The CMYK formula wouldn't convert on the CMYK to RGB conversion program.

Charles,

A-4 is the standard printer paper size. In inches it's approx 8 1/4 x 11 1/2. In the US it's commonly called "letter" size.

hehe cheers for cleaning that up :) I can never remember the measurements! :)

Letter is a bit smaller than A4 though. Not much....

"US Letter" is short and fat and "A4" is tall and skinny. Kind of the Laurel and Hardy of paper size comparisons.

*But like Rob says...the difference isn't that big.