Blank

blank

This is some good info.

But it matters only for those working for film, TV or corporate clients with calibrated screenings.
If you work for the internet, nobody cares. It won’t look the same as you graded it for 99% of the audience anyway.

But it matters only for those working for film, TV or corporate clients with calibrated screenings.
If you work for the internet, nobody cares. It won’t look the same as you graded it for 99% of the audience anyway.

This is what I'm saying.

And then, if you turn off all fancy features, at least most iPads and recent Apple laptops will look pretty close to standards.

If you don't care and you have no clients that don't care and you don't need to send your work to broadcasters that care then no, they are probably not necessary.

The point basically is that even if your audience doesn't have a calibrated screen, you have worked according to a specification and it will look the same amount of "wrong" on all displays.

When I first built a home system about 8-9 years ago (to supplant my freelance facility work), I bought an UltraStudio Mini (under $100, because it was an open box). The real expense is in buying a decent monitor and getting it calibrated, and that's where the biggest problem lies. The connection is trivial.

Although we've bought a bunch more of the bigger UltraStudios in the past few years, I still have that original Mini just as a spare... because you never know when you're going to need accurate pictures under difficult conditions. You have a fighting chance at making real color with these. Without it... it's all guesswork.

When I first built a home system about 8-9 years ago (to supplant my freelance facility work), I bought an UltraStudio Mini (under $100, because it was an open box). The real expense is in buying a decent monitor and getting it calibrated, and that's where the biggest problem lies. The connection is trivial.

Although we've bought a bunch more of the bigger UltraStudios in the past few years, I still have that original Mini just as a spare... because you never know when you're going to need accurate pictures under difficult conditions. You have a fighting chance at making real color with these. Without it... it's all guesswork.

Thank you for the input. I'm on the fence. I feel like I have some sense of an eye for "what looks decent enough" and have spent quite a bit of time in resolve and learning and reading through colorist tutorials, literature and programs, but at the end of the day, it is the technical stuff that really becomes a nightmare maze for me. I don't know if there is a bottom-line bright ness for things, I don't know how to deliver a QC master file, I don't know why certain things with similar levels of light look fine on Youtube and then others look absolutely destroyed (not that I want to end up on youtube but sometimes that's where it ends up...) All I know is to cross check things on services like vimeo and youtube on my monitor, apple devices and TV and see where they fall apart and try to adjust it and do try again. I would happily invest in the peace of mind of just "knowing what it is" on a monitor, I'm fine with that. But the other question is, is even that worth it when the technical labyrinth of all surrounding is so complex that without being a journeyman colorist, I have a current ceiling of what I can do and know.

How much, in your experience does a short film (20 min) expect to cost for a professional colorist to handle it? Is it better for a first time director who is (unfortunately) rather particular about what they do and don't want to just do it themselves and let the flaws be a learning experience for the next one? I would really like to take an in-person training with someone who can teach me what the rules are so I can accept the boundaries of what I'm working with.

I am also wondering your opinion on someone less experienced doing their best to grade their film for a look and feel and then paying someone more experienced to clean it up and maybe fix things they did wrong here or there, but essentially have a baseline vision that they improve upon instead of trying to start purely with the raw footage.


this is long-winded. Thank you for reading. and thank you for responding.

I'm an online editor with 20 years in the film and tv market, the real truth is we don't really know enough about anything, the technology is always changing and to keep up you have to keep being exposed to high profile jobs where they want to use the most updated technology. A good example is HDR colour technology.
In my opinion, you can read or watch all the youtube videos about a subject but you can never know if you can do it before getting a real job with a real (and scary ) deadline. TV specs are alright-ish to get it right but Film needs to be perfect every time.

Most of the technological advances are made for high-end Post house that delivers content to different broadcasters in all sort of delivery specs and an output card or a tv monitor is very important to them.

Naturally, if you know what to do with these items you would probably be delivering a better overall material to your viewer but in essence, you are right, you can get say without.

If you work for the internet, nobody cares. It won’t look the same as you graded it for 99% of the audience anyway.

As part of that 1%, I would encourage everyone to do the best possible job on every project.

If one has the budget and space for external monitoring, do it.