A revolution is afoot in commercial post- production—a revolution in color correction. Like all insurrections, this one is a challenge to the old order and as such, it is being warmly welcomed by some and fiercely resisted by others. Yet in my view, its success is inevitable. As the new way of color correcting spots promises to increase creative flexibility while saving time and money, it is going to be impossible to resist.
Traditionally, once directors finish shooting their film, the dailies are transferred to video for offlining. When that is done, the job goes back to the telecine house for color correction and final transfer to video, and from there the spot is composited. Color correction is time-consuming and expensive, in part because so much more than 30-seconds of film is put through the process. For the average spot, 30-minutes of footage might undergo color correction in a process that can take all day. Additionally, while the colorist’s work is meant to be final, the picture is often colored again in the compositing stage because elements tend to look different when they are composited together or set side by side. With color, context is everything.
It therefore seems fair to ask: Why color correct all this film when only 30 seconds will be used? Why color footage in a telecine suite only to color it again in the compositor’s room? Would it not be much more efficient to color just the 30-seconds that appear in the spot and do it as a final process?
Recently, we have been advising our clients to perform two simultaneous transfers at the dailies phase, a low-resolution color corrected pass for use in offline, and a broadcast resolution flat pass that we can use for both compositing and coloring in the final stage of post. Because we are only coloring 30-seconds of material, that part of the process can be accomplished in an hour, or at most two.
Compositors have had the tools to color imagery for some time, but recently the tools have been significantly improved. Quantel’s current generation of Q technology provides coloring tools that are the equal of, and in some instances superior to those of a Da Vinci.
To cite one example, a Da Vinci color corrector includes a windows function that allows the colorist to isolate parts of the frame for separate coloring. This function is limited, however, by the fact that the windows occur in geometric shapes. The Quantel system, by contrast, allows the artist to set up multiple animating passes. These animating shapes can be used to, for example, track a person’s hair or hat as it moves through a scene. The artist can then affect the color of the hat independent of the background environment, and immediately see how the two elements look in combination.
Typically in a Da Vinci system, the colorist would be obliged to transfer the hat and the background scene in separate passes. Even then, it can be difficult to judge if the color correction is correct because there is no way to composite the two elements to see if they work together.
Directors have been skeptical of this new methodology as it marks a fundamental change in the way they have been working for a long time. It also obliges them to remain involved in the project further along in the post process. But the directors we have worked with in this way have been quickly won over. The increased control it gives them over the final look of their film has proven to be a compelling argument.
Colorists will contend that theirs is a special art and that their eye alone should be trusted with setting the commercial’s final look. On the other hand, compositors are talented and highly trained artists too and, as I’ve noted, are already routinely readjusting the "final" look set by the colorist.
That part of the debate will continue on for some time, but the most powerful argument in favor of this new way of coloring is economic. Proceeding the way I have described saves the agency the cost of a day of telecine, as well as a day’s time in their schedule. That is a big deal, and that is why this revolution won’t be stopped.
