Sir! great to listen to you. You're such an amazing artist. First Question: What's the basic workflow for getting any look in films? & Secondly, how much time it takes you to complete the color grading process usually?

Thank you for your sharing, Joseph! Loved this collab 👏🏻

Thank you sir for sharing your knowledge!

@@Menoke Thanks for asking. I am a color scientist and not a colorist. The colorists I work with are responsible for the amazing art. I make the tools that colorists use to make color grades. The process of making looks starts with 2 main conversations. One with the directors or DP on the desired look and one with post producer to understand the technical requirements for delivery. This helps make sure that the that artistic decisions can actually make it through delivery. Look development starts from there. Each colorist and DP have specific ways they want looks to behave. I take the notes and look book for a project and make a few candidate looks. These will get refined, or thrown out entirely when the DP and colorists get time to meet. With the initial look in hand I’ll start making color management pipeline. This will define the main colorspace for a show, ACES or a cameras space and the primary view condition, HDR or SDR. I’ll then make the technical transformation for each camera into the main colorspace. That is enough to get editorial, VFX, dailies and production started. I’ll then start making versions of the look for each delivery requirement , rec709, DCP, HDR, Dolby HDR. The heart of this is the interaction of the DP and the colorist. It’s all about getting the story to screen.

@@josephslomka8161 That's awesome to hear it Man. Loved it. I knew it that You're not a colorist. But i just wanted your perspective on color grading. Thanks again for sharing this. Have a nice day and life.

Glad it's helping!

Great question! My Colorist Career Accelerator course is designed for all levels! Check out any one of the freebies I've made available within in the video description boxes on the channel. Downloading one will get you on the newsletter where we send updates on all of the upcoming courses!

Spiderman 2 was shot on film. Do you know what mastering editioning edition you are referring to for the look. The initial DVD release would have been done at Sony's HD mastering center. That would have been done with film in a telecine style process. I can remember if spideman2 was remastered for the box set when Spiderman 3 was released. Much of the 'early 2000's' look is that of early DI/late stage telecine. It's basically film origination with a very simple style film emulation. The source for the master would be a timed IP element or a lowcon telecine print. Do you have a specific year media and version of your Spiderman 2 look? Looking at IMDB the OC 2003-2007 was shot on 16mm film. This was likely also a telecine process from a film element. I would think that would account for the similar looks you noted.

Thanks for the answer Joseph! The version that I like best is the Blu-ray release of 2010. As far as I know it is the same version that was released in the box set in 2007. (The release of 2013 or the 4K release of 2019 do not look as good, in my opinion) If I understand you correctly the look that I like so much, was likely a result of the telecine process of the time? And this process is not used anymore or has evolved, which is why modern movies that are shot on Film too look so different? As I won't be able to shoot my project on film, is there a way how I can process the digital footage into a look that comes close to that?

A lot will rely on the image you get in camera first. Study the scenes for how they are lit, staged, composed etc. create depth in your scenes and use light to shape your actors and separate them from the background. Use whatever you have access to achieve this as best you can. Control wardrobe and items in the background as best you can. Then in post, again, there are a lot of variables that will be based on your specific footage but a few things I noticed in Spiderman 2 for you to consider (I watched the version from my library on Apple TV) It's a warm image in general, classic teal and orange, just not dialled up to Michael Bay levels, skin tones skewed very slightly into magenta, some scenes have the highlights skewed magenta as well (this may be only present in the version I have available so check yours to see if that holds true). It has a decent amount of contrast and saturation. As you increase contrast the visual saturation will increase as well, there are good tutorials on this very channel to help you control contrast and saturation separately better without working back and forth as much. In fact there are tutorials here for all the elements I mentioned. Once you get your footage onto the timeline to colour it, focus on those few elements and use the tutorials here to guide you, you'll start to get a feel for how it is effecting your image and you can start to fine tune it and hopefully get close to what you need. One further note about soft skin, here's a couple of things to consider -- Diffuse your main light source that is lighting the talent (key light) Diffuse it a lot. In post you can soften this further if needed but honestly that needs to be super super subtle, like set it to what you would think is subtle, then make it 10% of that lol. anyway, just a few simple starting points to get you going. Hope it comes together well for you. Good luck.

thanks!

What did you say?

Hmm, nothing was removed by me or my team…though now I’m curious to learn how thin-skinned I am 😂 Feel free to re-comment!

I said that normally you are the smartest guy in the room… But against Slomka, you were punching outside your depth. And when he talked about nuke, I would’ve asked him why nuke as opposed to resolve. Anyway, that was my comment . @@CullenKelly

​@@2424rocket Cullen is a pretty great interviewer. There was never a feeling of confrontation at all in conversing with him. I am sure any hiccups you run into will be tech glitches as opposed to deliberate slights. I'd be happy to explain why I use Nuke though. I have a background in VFX I have been using Nuke much longer than Resolve. I was part of the Open Color IO initial development and I am partial to platforms that let me use that library since I know how it works. Nuke allows for very fine adjustments that are not possible through the Resolve interface. The goal of Resolve is a tool that allows artists to quickly arrive at a look. Nuke is more like an image calculator. It lets images be split apart images and apply code or artistic transformations at any step in a level of detail that simply wouldn't benefit artists in Resolve. I still work a lot with Visual Effects in my position, helping smaller VFX houses with color pipelines or specific shots as necessary. I have yet to encounter a project where the artists are using Fusion. Nuke, Flame and After Effects are the 3 vfx programs I see most.

@@2424rocket Cullen is a pretty great interviewer. There was never a feeling of confrontation at all in conversing with him. I am sure any hiccups you run into will be tech glitches as opposed to deliberate slights. I'd be happy to explain why I use Nuke though. I have a background in VFX I have been using Nuke much longer than Resolve. I was part of the Open Color IO initial development and I am partial to platforms that let me use that library since I know how it works. Nuke allows for very fine adjustments that are not possible through the Resolve interface. The goal of Resolve is a tool that allows artists to quickly arrive at a look. Nuke is more like an image calculator. It lets be split apart images and apply code or artistic transformations at any step in a level of detail that simply wouldn't benefit artists in Resolve. I still work a lot with Visual Effects in my position, helping smaller VFX houses with color pipelines or specific shots as necessary. I have yet to encounter a project where the artists are using Fusion. Nuke, Flame and After Effects are the 3 vfx programs I see most.