Should I try to talk this director into doing this differently?

[John Nantz]

Post #1 “… So therefore, they supply the computer the footage is on for me to grade, but instead of providing me a computer they give me a cellphone to do it all on.”

#4 “the entire movie is not stored on a phone at once, I just take edited clips and color them a few at a time.” ….. “I had one [monitor, and keyboard?] the first two days, they just changed their mind on the third day and have to have someone else use that one, for the last few days now, and me with the phone.”

He guys, I don’t know where Ryan is with this job. In one place I got the feellng he is plugging away with it but in another place I got the idea he may have dropped it and gone on to antheor gig. Or, …. maybe the problem doesn’t exist any more. I don’t know. But, if there is a low bar for the deliverables (that’s a posability), and if he is still plugging away with the phone, then there are some low-cost options to make life a little easier and still not use the computer. Just thought I’d mention them. (please don’t kill the messenger!)

An old construction or design saying: "If you want it bad, you get it bad"
also, in contracts, "Say what you want or you get what you don't need"
A signed contract can cut both ways and we have no clue what this one specifies. I'd be looking for "out of scope", "extra work", or "unforeseen conditions".

[Paul R Johnson]

Only this week I got a client ask me if I could give him an idea what the unforeseen extra costs would be on a theatre job. The irony is that the job is to do half a dozen theatres with a clairvoyant show.

[Greg Miller]

Originally Posted by John Nantz

An old construction or design saying: "If you want it bad, you get it bad"
also, in contracts, "Say what you want or you get what you don't need"
A signed contract can cut both ways and we have no clue what this one specifies. I'd be looking for "out of scope", "extra work", or "unforeseen conditions".

And don't forget "force majeure."

How about "We build your bad design exactly to spec."
And the oldie "Good, fast, inexpensive ... you can have any two of the three."

[John Nantz]

Greg,

Originally Posted by Greg Miller

And don't forget "force majeure."

How about "We build your bad design exactly to spec."
And the oldie "Good, fast, inexpensive ... you can have any two of the three."

Those are good.Really like this one:
How about "We build your bad design exactly to spec."

[Ryan Elder]

Another thing about the color grading, is that they shoot the web series on iphones, and the exposure is automatic and not manual so it changes exposure during shooting, if subjects move around, or if the camera moves.

So it's challenging to fix all the exposure changes in post. Or maybe that's my job as a colorist and that's good because it's giving me work? :)

Or should I try to nicely mention the idea how a better camera can give them manual exposure options?

[Paul R Johnson]

I think we are wasting time on this one Ryan. Your job roles are the amateur organisations normality. Give the titles but don’t do it like the real world. They probably have a director of photography too, because he has the latest iPhone. Now you’ve explained, your phone will be totally suitable, because you wont be doing a colourists job at all, you’ll just be playing. It’s a movie club, which is fine, but it’s not real. If they can make real money with paying people, and using amateur gear, that’s damn good.

[Ryan Elder]

Well I have seen short films shot on cellphones or so they claimed, and they have manual exposure that is locked, unless all the exposure changes were color corrected in those as well likely?

[Brian Drysdale]

Drama films shot on phones use Filmic Pro or similar, which allow manual exposure. However, the colour grading in post will be limited (because of the compression, it's 8bit and probably 4.2.0), rather like your DSLR has limitations.

However, they probably aren't colour grading on the phones, they're likely to be using a computer,

[Paul R Johnson]

Only yesterday I was usuing Mavis, which I have on my phone, and it can shoot in so many modes but all use a small chip and rotten old lens. If you have shots that work with the limitation, that’s fine, but this is exactly why sales of real camera are so strong. You can tell a story on anything, if that story makes format irrelevant.

We could make movies on gopros because look wise, they can be stunning. In general though, we don’t.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

I’m using FilmicPro on my iPhone for nonprofit project for gimbal shots. FilmicPro has the ability to control the white balance and lock it at any temperature but you must remember to do so. Color grading would be done on the computer like with any normal camera. Its not hard to read between the lines that either you or the amateur project you’re working with can’t afford a proper computer for grading or trying to take a shortcut instead of following accepted methods. Working exclusively on your phone is popular for low end social media app like tiktok. This new phone based paradigm is for creating daily social media content.

[John Nantz]

In the words of Greg Miller, “We make your bad movie exactly to spec.” Or, like you want it.

Ryan, this is my two cents: take their money and run! (but your mileage may vary)
Fixing exposure chages in post may be onerous, but like you’re thinking, it is giveing you work and making money. Just do what you can with what you’ve got and try not to get ulsers over it.

Just guessing, their business model apparently appeals to the low-end YouTube’ers because it looks slightly better, or the story line makes up for it. If it makes them money, then that’s what it’s all about; and same with you, of course. Think of it this way, you can find out how their system works, and think about how parts of it can be used on your project to lower cost but at the same time produce a better product.

In the mean time, if there is a way to deal with the exposure changes that can save work effort, don’t tell them how to do it and keep it to yourself. Heck, don’t even tell ‘em you’ve done it! If you tell them how, then theyll tell the next “colorist” on their next job (who under bid you) how you did it. That will be YOUR idea and is not for sale.

On another note, I’ve played around with my iPhone 12 and, I have to say, the HDR video with stabilization is, frankly, very impressive, (when re-played back on the phone). But like you mentioned, the exposure changes from light to dark in a scene isn’t good. I’ve got some really nice looking still shots with it. We got a kitten a few months ago and I’ve got a lot of cat-growing-up videos now. This is what Covid does ….

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay thanks for the input. I will do it that way, get paid then run. Thanks.

Also, out of curiosity, the iphone looks good to shoot on if you want deep focus which will be good for mastershots under low light. But I don't like the expansion in the short focal length. Can the autofocus be locked as well, so it doesn't switch focus accidentally, or no?

[Brian Drysdale]

Low light won't be a strong point for small sensors if you're concerned about noise..

[Paul R Johnson]

My old grandad used to say use the right tool for the right job and it's always worked for me. I'm lucky enough to have a very nice mic collection - Yesterday I used a mic for a job - it did exactly what I needed and it cost less than £30. I could have used a mic that cost two grand, but the cheap one was the most appropriate.

With Ryan's project, it could be most appropriate to shoot on phones, I can think of a number of scenarios, but as soon as you move away from a phone size screen for viewing, the compromises jump out at you. I wonder what it would be like on the front row in a real cinema with big screen? My phone, ON my phone screen looks great but I always feel a little compromised. I got a negative comment on my YouTube channel about a shot where it was a 1920x1080 frame that I'd gone a little wild with the zoom to make it fit the frame - and a person who noticed, took the time to mention it. The others who saw it couldn't;t be bothered our didn't notice? This was quite revealing to me. Quality does matter once you drop below some random threshold. I always lag. SD 4:3 to 16:9 was two years behind, SD to 720HD was late, 720 to 1080 was late, and while I have the ability to shoot in 4K, I am not yet doing it and again, it's probably some way ahead for me. I don't like being a pioneer. I cannot however, subscribe to the sort of projects that have phones as requirements - to me that's like the fad in music of adding surface noise and crackle for art, or any form of lo-fi treatment.

[John Nantz]

Tagging on to what Paul said:

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

My old grandad used to say use the right tool for the right job ......

With Ryan's project, it could be most appropriate to shoot on phones, I can think of a number of scenarios, but as soon as you move away from a phone size screen for viewing, the compromises jump out at you. I wonder what it would be like on the front row in a real cinema with big screen? ......

Example: The picture of "Paul Anderegg's" wide-angle lens on my cam looks good on the web page (at least it does to me), but zoom in and, well, it starts to not look so good. Would not want to sho it on the big screen!, and probably not even on a TV. If it doesn't look so good on my 2012 MB laptop, you know it isn't that good. But, hey, ....good enough for the job. Just took a few pictures, selected the one that looked the best, cut the background clutter out then posted it.

https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-4k...ml#post1964800 picture at post #13
cam was sitting on a drafting board that was sitting on the kitchen sink counter top in front of a window.No heavy-duty product photographer here. Nicer looking photo than the iPhone 6 would have been, I think.