Who creates "rich" color: Colorists or camera engineers

Several reviewers of the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera have remarked on what rich colors the camera produces. And if you look at some of the side-by-side footage being posted, the colors really do seem to be quite a bit more gorgeous than its competitors.

However, now that I'm starting to understand Resolve, I'm insulted because I thought that with Resolve a good color timer can transform boring color into spectacular footage with just a few twists and twirls on the control surface.

Kidding aside, can elite colorists like you all are get those "rich" colors from any well-exposed footage produced by the current crop of DSLR and mirrorless cameras? (Such as the GH5, the new Fuji, and the various mirrorless Sonys).

Or is it possible that the new Pocket Cinema Camera could have a built-in advantage in producing excellent color over some of its competitors thanks to the hard work of the engineers who designed it?

I think the point is that the colors are gorgeous "out of the box". One needs only a simple Log to Rec.2020/709 conversion and the work is mostly done.

Certain old sayings and rules of thumb apply.
Crap in, crap out.
You can’t polish a turd.
You are only as good as the foot if you were get.
With that in mind I have made things look better than they were, hidden problems and turned a sows ear into a silk purse. But it is much better turning a silk purse into a gorgeous tapestry.
Our job is colorists is to make things either better or seamless in the directors vision. The better it is shot the more nuanced our work can be, opposed to trying to save the footage and force it back into place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you have a good color science, you have a raw or good Di recording, you expose correctly for your idea of color and light, and you add light and color in a scene, colorist not need to do miracle to do a gorgeous color of a file. Colorist are not happy to have to do miracle in file with bad color temperature, worst exposed, bad compression and more...
Gorgeous result are the result of all work, from good engendering of camera to good DoP to a good colorist that enhance a work of first ad second.
Do a bad ring in a color’s chain and you have medium or bad result.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Poop in poop out.

Get it right in camera.

It happens according to the customers... :

Examine where you start a project (your sources delivered) and respect at best what the customer hopes: I said it at best.

We can always discuss between responsible persons if the best can never be reached ... it will always be better next time (I remain optimistic). A good explanation and then ...

Now if you have 'joker card': Do not hesitate to be force of proposal ... it's also an aspect of the job

Call me crazy, but I think the heavy lifting is done by the art department and the cinematographer. Any competent camera can create a reasonable picture. The hard part is really the lighting and the exposure.

Once it's at a decent level, the colorist's work is made a lot easier. But any "richness" is a subjective call. You can always crank up the saturation and call it "rich," but it's not necessarily pleasing, accurate, or appropriate for the kind of story you're trying to tell. I only worry about whether the client is happy, since they're the ultimate judge of the material.

Should be hand-in-glove, the way the old Gordon Willis relationship functioned -- he gathers the light, the lab doesn't screw it up. The tuxedoes come out in March, slap each other on the back and crash the after-parties.

(Don't thank the timer.) (Ang Lee...) (Or the entire VFX crew.)

Of course the ones who really do know what they are doing keep the relationship secret --- much the same way a scandal-ridden public figure has a "fixer" paying off or making problems "go away". In that sense "We'll fix it in post" means "I know a guy..."



jPo, CSI

Ah yes, the golden age of Technicolor.....Those were movies.

[quote="Marc Wielage"]Call me crazy, but I think the heavy lifting is done by the art department and the cinematographer. Any competent camera can create a reasonable picture. The hard part is really the lighting and the exposure.

Ah yes, the golden age of Technicolor.....Those were movies.

FYI, if you're interested in the history of Technicolor, there's a nice short review here:

Ah yes, the golden age of Technicolor.....Those were movies.

Our office is in the old "original" Technicolor building in Hollywood -- the one from the time of Gone with the WInd and Wizard of Oz -- and I like to think that modern digital colorists are carrying the torch for good color in modern times. I think it helps to have a healthy respect for what film color was, and to know what a good picture looks like. But the reality is that the colorist alone can't do it -- it's a partnership between the cinematographer, the art department, the gaffers, plus the camera, and then the colorist. If everybody does their job, the pictures can look great. If just one of these screws up, we're dead.