Author
|
Topic: Color correction for 16mm?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andy Davis
Film Handler
Posts: 9
From: Portland, OR USA
Registered: Apr 2010
|
posted December 06, 2010 02:01 PM
Thanks @ Larry Arpin for simplifying the matter. I finally bit at that price (found one for $9 with shipping for 6"), and it just came in the mail. Granted, I haven't projected yet, but slapping the filter down over the film on a light table with a loup, it looks extrememly promising! I checked out my Jaws print first, which I unfortunately just showed--wish I had had this first. Then my print of Nashville, which is far more faded, and the results actually looked even better in terms of the rescue being done, if not the final result. I would wager, based on looking at the pics here, that compared to that Wittner filter, this allows more light (in color, and probably as a gel vs. glass, though correct me if that's wrong) and a less aggressive lean towards green (or the intensity of the blue), so when it is doing nothing more than removing red, the blue balance left behind is more natural than either the red or the sickly blue-green of the Wittner at it's worse--although it may work less miracles than the Wittner at its best. Maybe things will be different when I actually project, but if anyone would like to see scans of these prints, with a frame under the filter and one without, let me know, and I will get to it sometime soon.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Andy Davis
Film Handler
Posts: 9
From: Portland, OR USA
Registered: Apr 2010
|
posted December 07, 2010 03:04 PM
Well, I projected the films today, and the difference from what I saw on the light table is fairly significant. Nashville looked pretty terrible. I would rather go with the vibrancy of the original faded film than muted blue highlights, which just trade one set of flaws for another. Jaws, which has significantly more color, was a different story. I could see maybe using the filter or one similar. The color correction was great and the blue highlights fairly mininmal. The main drawback, again, was the muted quality of the image. On the face of it, the picture was quite nice, and color-wise vastly improved. With no basis of comparison an audience would be very pleased, I think. But when you pull the filter away there is such a leap in tactile vibrancy--an immediate "hey, we're watching a movie!" feeling, like it's coming off the screen, compared to the relative politeness of the filtered image. The reason I say I might use a filter to show Jaws is I did find a compromise which is probably going to sound pretty cracked-out. If you lower the filter so that maybe a fourth to a fifth of the top of the image slips over the edge of the filter, the screen gets a much-needed boost of vibrancy and warmth. Weirdly, it doesn't register that there is a band of unfiltered image at the top of the screen--it all registers as a happy cross between the "trapped in amber" feeling of the completely filtered image and the unchecked warmth of the unfiltered image. I would probably do a test of a third or so of the film to confirm that it does not produce a weird result in any scenes. The right spot is easy to find--if you slide it up and down, you get a sort of "a-ha" moment at one point. My gel filter is already totally messed-up, scratch and mote-wise, so that may be contributing to things. Maybe I should get a glass version, but I'm not totally sold on pursuing this avenue so far. I did order a few other suggested types of gel besides the CC50C, but mainly it seems like a lighter shade of the the same color as the CC50C would be a better solution than allowing light to spill over the top of the gel... I don't have a still camera, but again, if anyone is interested in seeing what I am talking about, I can shoot some Flip video of these tests at some point.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|