Nowadays I use power windows a LOT less than I used to, because I learned to sculpt and control light a lot more on set because having basically screwed myself, I knew what to look for the next time around. so on subsequent shoots I'd remember those blunders and avoid them. so I had front row seats on finding (and fixing) my own blunders. It meant that whenever I screwed something up on set, I was the one who had to fix it in post. We stand on the DP's shoulders, and unless they do their job, we can't really do ours.ĭoing my own color is one of the things that's made me a better cinematographer. There are certainly limits to how far you can push things, even with raw camera files and/or original negative. When there's absolutely no time and money, we wince and let it go. Even at my end of the post sewer, I still will use a window here and there to pop up a face or flag off a harsh background, just because I can. When you're under a tight schedule, you're not going to have time to digitally relight every shot (ala Steve Scott's excellent work on The Revenant). I mainly use windows to knock down the background and add shadows and depth to the image, but everybody works differently. I can't imagine doing a movie without them nowadays, but Richardson and Lucas clearly figured out a way to solve the problem, and quite a bit of what you see was just "lit that way" right on the set. One thing that Tarantino insisted on was: no power windows. It depends! There's a terrific podcast interview with the great Bob Richardson on Once Upon a Time in Hollywood that came out last week, and he spends 10 minutes talking about Yvan Lucas' excellent color-correction.
Wielage Actually I'd really like to know how deep you (or other colorists) go into problem solving with total rotoscoping and relighting.
0 kommentar(er)
