Jump to content


Photo

DIY COLOR CORRECTION


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Kenny N Suleimanagich

Kenny N Suleimanagich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 900 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 15 November 2006 - 11:41 PM

CRAZY process, I read about someone who color corrected a 10 minute short (16mm -> DV) on a Mac Pro correcting FRAME BY FRAME in Apple Aperture (PHOTOGRAPHY color correcting software). Such a crazy process, but it looked damn good for the effort.

Anyone ever heard of something like that?
  • 0

#2 Michael Collier

Michael Collier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1262 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 16 November 2006 - 05:10 AM

Not personally (I have though in my younger days before I discovered after effects) created traveling paintings by exporting frame by frame and then painting in photoshop and then re-importing into premiere. I imagine if you want to color correct that way there are things you can do to semi-automate the proccess (in premiere you can export in Tiff frames, then in photoshop you can create macros and tell it to apply the same macro to each frame, then in premiere set the standard still length to one frame. saves repetative work I suppose, and I am sure there are similar functions on the programs they used)

Possible....but why? There are so many better ways to go about it (even on low budget)
  • 0

#3 Joshua Provost

Joshua Provost
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 16 November 2006 - 03:42 PM

Is there some advantage to correcting frame-by-frame instead of shot-by-shot like most people do? I can't think of any advantage to it, just lots more work.
  • 0

#4 Josh Bass

Josh Bass
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 552 posts
  • Other

Posted 16 November 2006 - 04:08 PM

Perhaps the tools in photoshop are have finer controls than those in, say, Premiere, Vegas, Final Cut Pro?
  • 0

#5 Gavin Greenwalt

Gavin Greenwalt
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 225 posts
  • Other

Posted 16 November 2006 - 05:02 PM

Is there some advantage to correcting frame-by-frame instead of shot-by-shot like most people do?



No there isn't.

Because if you don't apply the same correction to each consecutive frame the image will be jittery, flickery and unuseable. So what you're doing is probably correcting one frame and then executing a macro on the rest of the shot. Which isn't actually correcting frame by frame.

If you want a changing color correction then you'll want to animate the effect anyway so that it's smooth.

I have hand rotoed mattes in Photoshop and Cinepaint frame by frame before, and that's also an exercise in precision so that your matte doesn't flicker, but it can be done, and is probably the only thing I would do frame by frame.

Edited by Gavin Greenwalt, 16 November 2006 - 05:03 PM.

  • 0

#6 Tim J Durham

Tim J Durham
  • Sustaining Members
  • 742 posts
  • Director
  • East Coast, Baby!

Posted 16 November 2006 - 05:09 PM

CRAZY process, I read about someone who color corrected a 10 minute short (16mm -> DV) on a Mac Pro correcting FRAME BY FRAME in Apple Aperture (PHOTOGRAPHY color correcting software). Such a crazy process, but it looked damn good for the effort.

Anyone ever heard of something like that?


http://digitalconten...neman_pipeline/

Somebody posted about this a couple days ago. Sounds like a lot of tedious work if he's describing it accurately, which I suspect he's not. It's probably more like what Gavin said.
  • 0

#7 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 16 November 2006 - 05:26 PM

Would it be possible to shoot Monochrome Super 8 and colour correct to get realistic vivid colours?
  • 0

#8 Gavin Greenwalt

Gavin Greenwalt
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 225 posts
  • Other

Posted 16 November 2006 - 06:35 PM

Would it be possible to shoot Monochrome Super 8 and colour correct to get realistic vivid colours?


Yes. But there are a lot of tricks to coloring large amounts of footage that don't involve having to hand paint each frame. Any time you start talking about hand manipulating footage, it'll amost always be easier, quicker and higher quality to use roto-shapes, keying and animated strokes. The exception are extremely fine internal details which sometimes take longer to roto than just hand paint.

It all goes back to how much time you want to spend, and how good you are. I've always said that you can do anything in any software package.

3D Studio Max and Maya are nothing more than fancy text editors. You could do everything they do inside of notepad. But the effort, time and quality would suffer. This is a case where apparently the user decided to attain quality at the expense of time. But that doesn't mean it was the best approach, you could have created the same results in much less time using: Fusion, Shake, Nuke, Combustion or After Effects. It's much like telecine: yes you *could* run all of your 35mm frames through a slide scanner, but it's by no means the best approach.

- Gavin
  • 0


Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Opal

Glidecam

CineTape

Abel Cine

Opal

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio