Jump to content


Photo

Amelie


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 Dylan Kress

Dylan Kress
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • Phoenix

Posted 12 October 2010 - 10:05 PM

What's up guys?

Just wanted to start a little discussion about one of my favorite flicks of all time; Amelie. Love the story... Love the imagery... Love the colors and tones of the world the filmmakers have created. I know they digitally color timed the film but I'm curious how much was really done in the DI process. I've been experimenting with film quit a bit lately and can't seem to get anything quite as colorful and vibrant as what they have created. I have a feeling the immaculate art direction of the film has a lot to do with why it's so damn gorgeous.

Here are a few screen grabs:
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

I'd love to know your guys' thoughts on how they captured images like these (i.e. film stock, gels, filters, etc...). I'd love to see before/after footage of the DI process.
Any insight is helpful.

Thanks in advance,
Dylan
  • 0

#2 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 13 October 2010 - 12:29 AM

Dylan, i'd say it's almost all about the art direction, a few camera tests, and adding continuity and increasing some saturation in the DI. If memory serves the special edition had some nice behind the scenes information on the film (someone nabbed my dvd version of it, so I can't confirm). Though, that first screen grab probably had blue added in in the DI on the fill-side.
It's a lot like Days of Heaven, beautiful beautiful film, which comes from shooting beautiful things in the first place.
  • 0

#3 Charles Boileau

Charles Boileau
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Other
  • Montreal

Posted 13 October 2010 - 07:53 AM

Adrian is totally right... I recently watched the movie and the behind the scene footage because a director I worked with wanted that look for a music video. If he hadn't worked the production design the way he did the whole feel wouldn't have worked.

The DI they did for the movie did added to the whole feel. Bringing back colors on skin tones that you see in the environment.

Here is the music video I was talking about. It's not totally there, but it's pretty close (and it's in french!):

Of course vimeo took allot out of the tones...
  • 0

#4 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 13 October 2010 - 09:41 AM

I think I have the ASC article on it somewhere. Let me see if I can find that issue. I haven't picked the thing up probably in 7 years, but I seem to recall there was quite a bit of filtration used too to augment the "off" colors of the movie. Maybe special makeup too to make certain colors render a natural hue with the rest of the scene having a color bias. . .
  • 0

#5 Dylan Kress

Dylan Kress
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • Phoenix

Posted 13 October 2010 - 01:34 PM

Okay so I did some homework and found some uncorrected shots in the outtakes...
A bit of computer magic and we have a side by side comparison. The images on the top are the uncorrected ones.
I have a bunch more of these but I'll post a few of the good ones.

Posted Image
You can really see how much they punched up the saturation in this one. What a beautiful image.

Posted Image
This one really surprised me. The uncorrected footage almost looks out of focus. You guys think it looks sharper in the corrected shot because of the added contrast?

Posted Image
Gorgeous.

Posted Image
The skin tones on this changed completely!

It's strange but after looking at all of these side by side it looks like most of the uncorrected images are a little soft. Can anybody lend some insight into what they're doing in the post process to bring in the sharpness and clarity of these final images?
  • 0

#6 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 13 October 2010 - 01:44 PM

NOt really a side by side. The un-corrected ones are probably from the dailies, most likely on SD, whereas the corrected ones have been scanned at at least 2K for a DI; hence why they looks so different. You'd need to see a scan of the neg before and after grading to really see what's going on.
  • 0

#7 Dylan Kress

Dylan Kress
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • Phoenix

Posted 13 October 2010 - 03:08 PM

Is there a difference in the process between scanning to SD (for dailies) and scanning to 2k for your final DI other than the obvious size of the image? (i.e. the way they scan it, etc...)
I should probably just call a processing house but if anyone cares to elaborate or point me to another discussion that'd be a huge help.
  • 0

#8 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 13 October 2010 - 03:14 PM

Most certainly. Different machines, for one, and for two, they generally just apply a quick look, if anything correction-wise at all to the neg, and then output it on very low quality recording media. It's just used to "see what was shot," and to work off of in an edit, sometimes. There's a huge difference, not jut resolution in pixel wise, between a mini-dv tape and a DPX file... (color space, data rate, bit-depth, could be 60 (or 50i), 720x480 -v- 2046x 1150 ish)
If anything, the dailies there show me that the vast majority of the look was dialed in on set, in camera, and then tweaked and accentuated in post.
  • 0

#9 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 13 October 2010 - 04:31 PM

It's always a bit misleading to compare dailies to the final color-correction and think that the dailies represent the "true" look of the original. Not to mention, it's even misleading to compare a flat scan of the original negative to a color-corrected image and think that the look was created by the color-correction. Negative was never meant to be viewed directly, it was designed to be printed, so most scans just show you the max highlight and shadow information on the negative and leave it to you to add the amount of gamma (contrast) and saturation in the digital grade, or conversely, print the negative in which case the print stock is adding the gamma and saturation and you'd be timing the color and brightness.

I suppose the only meaningful comparison, if you are trying to determine what was created in the digital color grade compared to how it was shot originally would be to compare the final digital grade to a one-light print off of the negative, both projected.

In any case, a lot of the look of "Amelie" was done in camera -- warming filters for example were often used, and of course there's the production design and lighting, etc. -- but then it was further adjusted in the D.I., sometimes though not to add more warmth but to actually restore some of the color to blue objects in the frame. Obviously the title sequence was more heavily processed in the D.I. for that odd cross-processed reversal look.

Also I believe they used the lower-contrast 5277 320T negative and added the contrast back in the D.I.
  • 0

#10 Dylan Kress

Dylan Kress
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • Phoenix

Posted 13 October 2010 - 04:36 PM

The whole processing and transfer process just seems like a lot to wrap your brain around.
I guess it's just one of those things you need to experience to really understand.

When you do a 2k transfer you're obviously not transferring to an HD tape. Are they transferring to an analog format or straight to a computer?
  • 0

#11 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 13 October 2010 - 04:46 PM

Generally right to files on a SAN, though you can do a poor man's 2K by going out to HDCamSR (1920x1080 is very close to 2046x (whatever))
  • 0

#12 Dylan Kress

Dylan Kress
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • Phoenix

Posted 13 October 2010 - 07:22 PM

Cool.

Thanks for all the help guys. I'm excited to shoot some stuff and get more familiar with the transfer process.
  • 0

#13 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 13 October 2010 - 08:14 PM

Generally right to files on a SAN, though you can do a poor man's 2K by going out to HDCamSR (1920x1080 is very close to 2046x (whatever))


There is also the choice of LTO tape for data storage. Though for a D.I. they would scan and store it on their SAN usually for immediate access.
  • 0

#14 Dylan Kress

Dylan Kress
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • Phoenix

Posted 13 October 2010 - 08:50 PM

Is print stock similar to shooting stock in that it is uses light sensitive emulsion or are you actually printing a transparent ink onto the film?
  • 0

#15 Dylan Kress

Dylan Kress
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • Phoenix

Posted 13 October 2010 - 08:55 PM

Sorry I just realized how retarded that question was. LOL. I should have just looked that up on my own.

Found my answer tho. :rolleyes:
  • 0

#16 Dylan Kress

Dylan Kress
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • Phoenix

Posted 13 October 2010 - 09:02 PM

Negative was never meant to be viewed directly, it was designed to be printed, so most scans just show you the max highlight and shadow information on the negative and leave it to you to add the amount of gamma (contrast) and saturation in the digital grade, or conversely, print the negative in which case the print stock is adding the gamma and saturation and you'd be timing the color and brightness.

I suppose the only meaningful comparison, if you are trying to determine what was created in the digital color grade compared to how it was shot originally would be to compare the final digital grade to a one-light print off of the negative, both projected.



What do you mean by 'timing the color and brightness?'
  • 0

#17 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 13 October 2010 - 11:03 PM

Good call on the LTO David; something I forgot about (like many things, of course). By the by, is LTO something for real time access? I always figured it wasn't -- a kin to say throwing some ProRes files on a Blu-Ray or the like for storage/moving from place to place, but just curious to anyone who knows.
  • 0

#18 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 October 2010 - 12:04 AM

Good call on the LTO David; something I forgot about (like many things, of course). By the by, is LTO something for real time access? I always figured it wasn't -- a kin to say throwing some ProRes files on a Blu-Ray or the like for storage/moving from place to place, but just curious to anyone who knows.


No, I don't think LTO's record or playback in real time, they aren't videotapes.
  • 0

#19 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 October 2010 - 12:13 AM

What do you mean by 'timing the color and brightness?'


When you color-time a print, you basically have control over the printer light levels for three colors (RGB or YCM), so this controls both the overall brightness of the print and the color balance of the print.

You don't have (much) control over gamma (contrast) though unless you do something extreme like a skip-bleach process. When I tell a director what a timing session will be like for a print, I tell him that his choices will be basically brighter or darker overall, and/or more or less red, blue, green, yellow, cyan, magenta -- again overall. That's basically it. You can't say "crush the blacks a little but keep the highlights the same" or "lift up the area just under his eyes" or "match the saturation of the blue in the sky to the sky in the proceeding shot" or "darken that left corner of the room", etc. Instead you say things like "the cut before needs a bit more blue and has to be a point or so brighter to match the shot that follows better", or "this whole sequence needs a bit of magenta added to the warmth, it's too greenish-yellow" or "that moonlit shot should have a hint of cyan to the blue, and be a lot darker".
  • 0

#20 Dylan Kress

Dylan Kress
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • Phoenix

Posted 14 October 2010 - 03:35 AM

okay, so it gives you one last chance to make final basic adjustments before you're stuck with what you've got essentially...
So it's not as powerful as a DI if you plan to make lots of adjustments?

Can you skip the whole process of digitizing your film (other than dailies of course) by color-timing and printing? And if that's the case you must be watching a projection of the processed negative to determine what you need to correct when printing???

I may be way off here...
  • 0


Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Opal

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS