[Tig] Oxberry scanners

Kevin Wheatley hxpro at cinesite.co.uk
Thu Nov 30 20:15:15 GMT 2006

Jason Crump wrote:
> interesting. makes sense. I agree it is definatly silly to send a final
> grade to VFX. But do you find it to be more advantagous to have a raw scan
> versus a basic primary grade where channels are simply shifted without
> affecting the integrity of the channel in an effort to balance the channels
> or to bring them between 95 and 685 if the scan is over or under? Or for
> example, say a grade that does change the integrity of the channels by
> shifting the gamma in the green to remove a green cast that some 
> scanners or
> HD cameras give?

As a rule, if your adding high end 3D CGI you'll be tracking the 
original scene lighting in some way, and the last thing you want to 
have to do is reverse a grade done on each plate. You will already 
have a way to reverse what ever the scanner/lab/film or digital camera 
did to the original light, without adding the complexitiy of what can 
be a random effect. So give us the raw scan with a fixed scanner 
setting everytime, excepting when there would be clipping in the scan.

Most of the high end shows in London all require us to apply a 
neutralising grade comunicated to us as meta-data in some form, which 
is added during VFX. We'll also be tracking the creative intent 
(a.k.a. 'final' look) by various previewing mechanisms, this applies 
even if its a lab/film grade. This is all with the intent of delaying 
the decision of final look to the last minute, but still showing the 
director/producer/etc the 'current' look.


| Kevin Wheatley, Cinesite (Europe) Ltd | Nobody thinks this      |
| Senior Technology                     | My employer for certain |
| And Network Systems Architect         | Not even myself         |

More information about the Tig mailing list