[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

No Subject



On Mar 23, 21:16, Michael D. Most wrote:
} Subject: Re: tape-to-tape vs. telecine

> Oh, c'mon, Rob. Clipped signals and blowups are certainly not the only
> limitations in "conventional" tape to tape!

I didn't mean to imply that clips and blowups are the only
limitations, only that they are the most obvious, the simplest answer.

> altered from the colorimetry of the original. If you try to balance for
> flesh tones, there is simply no assurance that the rest of the colors in
> the scene are going to become any reasonable facsimile of the original
> pallette, i.e., the ones you'd have if you balanced for flesh tones with

absolutely.  One reason I don't find myself watching much on-the-air
TV (besides the fact that my eyes are falling out of my head when I
get home from work, after a day of being 30 inches from a monitor) is
my frustration at seeing my own work broadcast, with the associated
mutations implied.

> In commercial land,
> you just give the 15 people in the room whatever they want. But in
> episodic, you're expected to deliver a good picture, one that's
> representative of the photography.

I understand your point, but I'd throw an "Oh, come on, Mike" your way
on that first sentence ;-).  I have clients who come to me before they
shoot; we discuss the "attitude" of the spot, the light, locations,
filtration, and perhaps do a test or two.  These are the clients with
whom I love to work, as I'm a part of the creation of the spot.  I
suppose episodic is more generic, less inclined toward that kind of
creativity on the part of the colorist, though perhaps every bit as
difficult, because your interpretation must be more exact, within the
narrow limits of video's ability to represent film.

--Rob


Subj:	suppressed passes: which device?
Date:	95-03-25 01:39:19 EST
From:	rob at xyzoom.alegria.com
To:	telecine at xyzoom.alegria.com