On 13/12/14, Christine Aguila, discombobulated, unleashed: >Thanks for posting, Eric. Of course Burri's comments and photos were >interesting and excellent, but in equal measure, I was greatly struck by >the lovely quality of the black and white video. The blacks were so >rich and the light elegant. Maybe Cotty can tell us what the >videographer did. Anyway, thanks for posting.
Funny you should mention it - coincidentally I just finished watching the video myself :-) With video there are plenty of steps in the production process, but lets assume we've done all the pre-production work, and are at the shooting stage. The director will usually know exactly what effect he/she is looking for in the finished film, so the only things that can be controlled at the location are lighting and sound. Professional video cameras can't shoot on mono, so that effect will have to be done in the post-production phase. However, if one is after a gritty black an white effect, lighting can be effectively controlled to enhance the later image grading process. For instance, maybe a touch less fill light on the subject to enhance the contrast from the key light. Obviously filters can be used in front of the lens, but to be honest most directors will avoid this, preferring the greater control in post. So, you shoot your camera original rushes (or 'dailies' as the Americans say) and take it with you to the edit suite. Here the editor will go through a multitude of steps, so in the interests of brevity I'll keep it short. After the rough cut has gone through the necessary revisions, and the director is happy, the editor can get on and finalise the video and audio portions. On a large production, these will be farmed out to specialists. On my level, I do all this myself, with varying degrees of success! The audio will be 'smoothed out' by adding music and sound effects where desired, and then each transition between two separate pieces of audio will be set so the sound from (say) an incoming shot doesn't jar with the sound from an outgoing shot. And so on. The video needs equally important attention. This is called 'grading' and usually involves 3rd party software but I use the simple grading tools in Apple's Final Cut Pro editing software, which does me fine. For even more control, there is 'Color' in Final Cut Studio. It is possible to buy plug-ins for these just like those you might buy for Photoshop. These plug-ins can range from simple visual effects through to complex global changes to create an overall look to a film. I prefer to do it myself as the sort of thing I produce do not warrant huge creative control. So, the grader will go through the video track and literally apply changes to the image shot by shot. I do this regularly. For instance, if there is a slight exposure error, or more usually if the colour balance isn't quite right. We all know what mixed lighting can do to still images, but hazard a though for the poor videographer as he/she may have to pan from a tungsten-lit interior to a daylight scene in one shot. You get my drift. Black and white, of course, completely obviates that problem, as in the Rene Burri video. Here, the grader has removed the chroma from the whole video, and then likely gone through shot by shot to optimise each one. Of course, some shots are identical -eg the main interview shot and so any changes applied to the first shot can then easily be applied to subsequent shots of the same type (even though they may have been shot on entirely different days). Chroma and luminance scopes in the software and a good eye on a top-grade monitor ensure the job is done right. The Burri video gives a pleasing high-key image and although quite contrasty, is smooth and with plenty of definition. I'm sure just as the director intended. It would be great to see the camera original material - the blacks wouldn't merge into each other as they do on the video. The effect is nice but the camera designers will be looking at that and crying. Production-wise, the background movement from the lone lady behind is pretty lame. Better to have 2 or 3 in and out (to create a busy office environment) or none at all! Sound is okay, found the music levels a bit high but thankfully they faded out sooner rather than later. The subject is beautifully shot and not overdoing the close-ups from the second camera. With the limited depth of field, these would either have been DSLR type cameras or more likely a 'full frame' camera like the Sony F3 or even my latest lusting-box the FS7. Modern digital video cameras shoot in a variety of codecs and frame- rates and bit-ratesdepending on market. In the UK, for broadcast it's always PAL 50i and depending on subject type: news- 35 or 50 M/bits documentaries 50 or 100 M/bits and top-level drama 100 M/bits and up! We're on 2K here - 'full HD' of 1920X1080. Coming in time will be 4K (or 'UHD') but that's after I retire! As for codecs, my 50 M/bit camera shoots in a few formats but the main one is HD422 MP4. All camera original material has to be transcoded into the preferred editing format, which for me would be either Apple ProRes 422 or XDCam422, and once edited, can be outputted to whatever is needed. I master to HD QT movies, and the clients usually want web-ready MP4 video with about 6 M/ bit bit-rate. This creates file sizes of about 50 to 100 MB per minute of footage. So in answer to your question, the effects will always be applied in post-production using specialist software. I guess I coulda said that in one line ;-) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ Broadcast, Corporate, || (O) | Web Video Production ---------- <www.seeingeye.tv> _____________________________ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
