Trying to achive a color similair to The Bourne Ultimatum-

[dirtcollins]

Trying to achive a color similair to The Bourne Ultimatum-

I am shooting a film on Sony HD F900 and I am trying to get the look from the Bourne Ultimatum. Please explain to me how this would be acheived.

I really like the green and blue color pallete they used. Just not sure if this was done on camera or in the editing room.

Please explain to me both doing it on camera and in post. And if there is a mixture of both teqniques used please explain.


Thanks
Brendan Collins

[James T Mather]

On Set: shooting with the colour balance off (by white balancing through either a half or quarter CTO or CTS gel or maybe in combination with a quarter/half minus green filter using a white card).

alternatively the 900 has a box that can, in addition to many other things (like hardening the blacks etc) can tint the image green (or magenta) - this can be viewed on a monitor as it it happening.

or: Shoot straight with a neutrally balanced camera (adjusting properly for various interior and exterior situations etc) - then in post subtract the red from the shadow tones of the image. Add a tiny bit of green/blue to the shadows. This will preserve the skin tones but give an overall blue/green cast.
Test the same through the mid and high tones.

Test for both of these options prior to shooting and dilute to your taste.

Make sure no one is wearing day glow colours in your movie and avoid shocking pink buildings etc.

Viola.

[Thomas Mathai]

I wonder how much of the look was achieved in the DI

[Ramesh Jai]

I don't know how to achieve it buy I will really advice you to try and achieve the look in post (rather than on location) just in case...

[David Mullen ASC]

My experience is that if you want to manipulate the color tone of the image, do most of it first with art direction and costumes so you aren't screwing with the fleshtones. Then when you also add an overall color bias in post or in camera with filters or white balance, you don't have to go as far to get the effect and thus keep the fleshtones from wandering too far into something unrealistic.

The worst thing is to try and give the image a warm or cold feeling when you're fighting with a subject of the opposite color. For example, you can pour all the blue light you want into a room of red brick walls and wooden furniture, but it's hardly going to make a difference, and all you'll get are blue faces. But create a set with pale blue walls, black and silver furniture, blue-ish costumes, and you'll barely have to add any blue in color-correction to create that cold feeling.

After you've created that color tone in art direction and costumes, then create light sources that have that color tone so again, the color bias is motivated logically. Cool white fluorescent fixtures in the scene, for example, for that cyan cast. Daylight windows for a cool skylight color temp. Again, if the scene is supposed to be lit by firelight, in a warm-toned room, it's very hard to get a overall cool bias.

[James T Mather]

I forgot to mention Filters on camera (80a/storm blues or, for that Soderbergh "underneath" type vibe even blue/green polas etc) and flashing as options (using the varicon with a heavy tint - as an added benefit the producers won't go into cardiac arrest - as they would when doing the same to 35mm since the effect can be clearly viewed in real time).

As regards David's post above, I agree (as witnessed in his lovely work on Northfolk) - however (and not to be incalcitrant) but I have found introducing colour into the shadows does some rather pleasing things to the image - including generally staying away from skin tones if you are a "key lighting" kind-of-DP (rather than a peter hyams ride-the-low-end-of-the-curve kind of lighter).

but it's all personal taste - Kubrick saw fit to push the stock two stops and then overexpose by a stop on Eyes Wide Shut (hence the crazy colours and heavy blue tint in the shadows) - not everyones cup of java. Its all relative.

In short - test to determine what you like.

[Matt Redmond]

To add to what David wrote, doing most of the work of setting the 'look' on set can give a lot more control (and be cheaper) than what you may achieve in post by just grading. Not saying it's always the case, but for the most part grading should be the sweetener, not the the entire meal.

For a random, yet pretty example: A character walks into a room adorned with snow and ice. Built solidly into one of the walls is an open fireplace containing a small fire. Director wants a cool blue, almost cyan ambient light within the room, but still wants to retain the slight, yet noticeable warm glow from the fireplace. You will get a much better, and more affordable result by lighting it as close as you can in the field, and then sweeten it in grading should you need to. Just making the room cyan in post will alter the colour from the fireplace...and that's bad. Don't even think about asking the post guys to "track a matte over the fireplace" unless you want to open your wallet and begin crying.

However if you're planning on adding a slight cyan cast to the entire film then you can't gel the sun very easily. If you have someone who knows what they're doing you can subtly subtract some red from the camera matrix. It's not a bad look but requires back and forth camera and post tests. Depending on what you're doing, a slight matrix tweak in camera can actually be beneficial to achieving a good look (and removing the "I was shot on a sony" look). But again the look will be applied to EVERYTHING you do with that matrix engaged.

In other words test, test, test, test......

[James T Mather]

Whilst lighting interiors and controlled environments this is true - however the Bourne movies - whilst controlling wardrobe and some aspects of art department seemed to not hugely mess with local building colour etc. it would seem to me that the colour bias of the film generally was achived as a grading/filtration/stock effect. As I recall, it looked to me like it was slightly cooled to give the more european overcast light - certainly during day exteriors.

[Tom Lowe]

In terms of camera movement, feed about 30 cups of coffee to your operator right before the take, and you will achieve it.

[PaulClements]

In terms of camera movement, feed about 30 cups of coffee to your operator right before the take, and you will achieve it.

Haha... or get the DP to stab the operator with a cattle prod at intermitent intervals.

Paul

[jtcoleman]

My experience is that if you want to manipulate the color tone of the image, do most of it first with art direction and costumes so you aren't screwing with the fleshtones.

...

The worst thing is to try and give the image a warm or cold feeling when you're fighting with a subject of the opposite color.

David makes a great point ... i had an issue on my last short where we wanted a flashback scene to come out all blue/cold, but it was shot as an exterior boat sequence on a lake ... and it turned out the lake was a muddy brown, and the weeds and grass around it were all brown, and the trees were brown ... and once we got into post, no matter how hard we tried, the blue tone thing just wouldnt look good.

boy, I wish I had read this thread sooner. ;)

JT
Austin, Texas

[James T Mather]

In what respect do you mean not look "good". I see no reason why grading something like this generally shouldn't be a problem (unless there is something I'm missing)

http://aycu29.webshots.com/image/38628/2005438584314372043_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2005438584314372043)

and with blue in the low end.

http://aycu30.webshots.com/image/37029/2001670779670773066_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2001670779670773066)


In terms of the bourne thing - certainly this (http://www.thebourneultimatum.com/assets/downloads/wallpapers/bourne_ultimatum9_1024.jpg)picture suggests some serious grading going on - with powdery white skin tones etc and a general similarity of hue. although note that the clothes are all in a specific tone "register" - which helps marry the elements togther. (Further this isn't a specific screen grab from bourne - From my memory the film is pretty neutral actually - the cold thing being discussed reminds me more of minority report)

What specifically about your grade was not working?

[David Mullen ASC]

Where the face in the shot?

That's the issue I was talking about -- you can go farther with grading a background than you can grading skintones. Of course, you can do elaborate things digitally to colors, especially those outside of fleshtones like greens and blues that can be isolated, as they did on "O Brother Where Art Thou?" but trust me, it's easier to work with footage that is closer to the final color tone you want because then you don't have to manipulate it as much in post and thus you aren't monkeying with fleshtones as much.

In this example, a fall landscape full of reds and oranges, turning that blue and green without affecting a face (which is full of reds and oranges) is very difficult, especially when you have a lot of footage with a lot of movement.

Audiences accept a face timed warm or cold to some degree, but not the the same degree they except inanimate objects pushed in those directions.

Plus you may have continuity issues to worry about, established colors of certain props, costumes, or cars, so there are limits to how far you can push them warm or cold without it looking obvious. The worst case example would be wanting a cool-toned movie but the main character is a fireman in a yellow jacket driving a red fire truck.

Trust me, the best way to manipulate color is IN FRONT OF THE CAMERA first. You want a warm scene, shoot warm subjects. You want a cool scene, shoot cool subjects. Creating the effect artificially often feels, well, artificial.

Sure, "Bourne" is often timed on the cool and desaturated side, but it doesn't look heavily manipulated (except in select parts.) They didn't dress him in a red sweatshirt and then spend hours in a D.I. suite turning it into a blue sweatshirt. The DP, the art director, etc. all collaborated on creating the color tone in production design, lighting, costumes... and then it was tweaked in post further to complete the look. Digital color-correction doesn't save you the hard work of designing and photographing a movie to create the right color tones.

Too many people -- often beginners -- drift into the thinking that something has to be done with the most modern or elaborate digital tools possible, when often old-fashioned "analogue" craftsmenship is involved. Put your characters in cool or neutral clothing, have them walk around a grey location on an overcast day or twilight or stand under Cool White fluorescent practicals, etc. -- then timing it a little cool (in camera or in post) gets you that look. You avoid having them wear reds and oranges and run around a location full of reds and oranges and think "I'm going to give this movie a cold look in post production."

Look at these stills from "Northfork" - the only post manipulation was pulling the chroma down, the rest was done with art direction & lighting:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/northfork33.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/northfork34.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/northfork35.jpg

[James T Mather]

Sure I agree - if the resources are available - but I was merely suggesting that other options are available to people who ask something fundamental about colour bias in a film. Many of the people here will have a pretty low budget which means a thin art department (maybe even just a props guy) etc and will rely more on the cameraman than the art department to give the film a look.


Too many people -- often beginners -- drift into the thinking that something has to be done with the most modern or elaborate digital tools possible

I don't see digital as a catch all - and I've made my living as a Dp for sixteen years - shooting good ole analogue film as a commercials and drama cameraman - www.jamestmather.com if you're inclined). - In fact, my preferred method is to telecine from an old fashioned print or interpos for commercials (unfortunately a dying thing as producers don't like the hassle etc). don't much like the "thinness" of pure neg.

It was really more encouraging him to explore the options - naturally it's better to "tim burton" it and get the colour into the sets but it may not be possible if you're making the film in your Aunt Maeve's house and cannot change the wall colour without a fight - or indeed a run-n-gun actioner.

[BASSAM MSSALATIE]

Where the face in the shot?



Brilliant expereince .thanks David:love:

[David Mullen ASC]

I wasn't questioning your experience at all, Jim. I was trying to get any beginners listening in to think about color design in their productions.

Certainly, I understand it's possible to do it all in post and you may have no other alternatives in some situations, but the ideal thing is to do it in front of the lens and then finish it in post. Even on a low-budget movie, if not especially on a low-budget movie. People often ask me about the look of "Twin Falls Idaho", which was a 17-day feature shot with a half-million dollars (and pre-D.I. of course) with a strong color look created in lighting and art direction. The director and I often worry about these new filmmakers who claim that they "can't afford production design". You can "design" anything if you try hard enough, most of the time, except documentaries and other uncontrollable real-world scenarios.

The issue regarding the look of "Bourne Ultimatum" or a lot of other big Hollywood movies is this odd assumption by young people that everything is done with computers in post nowadays, even something as simple as make a day exterior feel cold. I remember coming into a room where "Apollo 13" was on the TV and someone was saying to someone else that the launch sequence was all done with CGI, when in fact, they used a Saturn V model.

The simple fact that shooting it correctly in front and with the camera will make post a lot easier in achieving the final look. Having to work with footage that has the opposite look to what you want is a pain in the ass in post.

Here is another example of getting the cyan look in camera:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/shadowboxerDVD4.jpg

Here we used Cool White fluorescents and wrapped the tubes in additional Cyan gel. By doing it in front of the camera, I still have the option of having white or warm light coming from the rooms or on a face if I didn't want a cyan cast (plus the car headlights stay correctly tungsten-looking.)

[Rudi Herbert]

David,

Agree with you, if you can do it before it enters the lens or as it enters the lens, that's the best way to do it. I remember my first attempt at rotoscoping a mistake out of a 2 minute scene, deleting it and painting over it frame by frame and how it never really looked as good as if I had not been so lazy or overconfident on my post abilities and redo the take without the darn prop in it. I was trying to avoid an additional take and the little money it would have saved me (i was paying the crew by set ups) and it ended up costing me so much more...

On a related note, something interesting happened once, where we were using a blue filter on camera for a cool look. Then somebody mistakenly white balanced the camera with the filter on and when we got to post, well, of course none of the coolness we expected was there. BUT, when I tried to bring back some of the blues, I found it was much easier than if we had not had the filter on anyway (I ran a test to prove it) and we actually got the look we wanted ans there was a lot more information than usual on the blue channel but the faces still retained lots of warmth. This was done with an F-900. What do you think about this?

[James T Mather]

Certainly, absolutely getting it in camera is a better way to go but not always possible - in fact, the first a/c on the bourne ultimatum worked with me a couple of weeks ago and he was telling me that an assassination scene was filmed "live" in, I think, Liverpool street station (or maybe waterloo), with the camera teams shooting "verite" amongst commuters. thats just greengrass style. the level of control was, John told me, zero.

I was just explaining the available options as I saw them was all.

[Nathan Garofalos]

A month or so ago, I shot a short to experiment with day for night. It was cool trying to manipulate everything, then tinting it blue and giving it a cold night time feel. But I realized after a bit of color correction that to get the look I want, it was just best to capture it how I wanted in front of the camera.

I'm young, only 19, and guilty of thinking you can fix everything in post. But after that experience, even though it turned out well (my friends and family thought I filmed it at night, but after I told them I didn't, they still didn't believe me) I will never rely on something in post that is so heavily dependant on making everything work as I just did... Oh well, it was a good learning experience.

[James T Mather]

Sure but Daruis Khondji's Day for night in "The beach" is pretty good. It's all how you manipulate your limits. Nothing is cut and dried - there are many ways to skin a cat. Plus it sounds like you succeeded in your quest - and shooting it at night given your situation - was this possible? - usually producers start weeping when I mention using wendy lights and 18ks with condors etc.

Plus I love the look of "where eagles dare" - whole film attempts a pretty much day-for-night (or at least a day-for-dusk look)

[Nathan Garofalos]

Every part of the short was believable that it was shot at night, except when I had the man walk inside then outside, you could see where things were over exposed so I had to do some pick ups. I came back at night to do that one shot. I could have shot the whole movie at night time, I just wanted to experiment with the effect.

In "Cast Away" wasn't the beach scene where Tom Hank's is holding the volley ball while he is standing in the surf done day for night. That was really well done. I want to rent "The Beach" and "Where Eagles Dare" to see how theirs turned out.

[James T Mather]

sure, the problem is always the skies (Nightmare - as in they are generally brighter that at night (less backlight = less atmosphere sub-scattering) - polas can help at the right time of day and in the right conditions) and, as a Dp, controlling the direction of shooting in crucial as you always aim to create some light/shade to mimic and fake the "keylight" feel that night shooting has. with no sky in shot I find backlight and 3/4 backlight are good - although you need a lot of fill - so that when you underexpose that there is still some detail in the faces. sidelight has the benefit that the pola will do a lot of work plus you get the benefit of contrast.

However, one thing you did learn was not to do that particular thing again (inside vs outside balance) - next time you shoot like that you'll schedule accordingly so you end up shooting that as the light in the exterior drops so that the balance of the interior exceeds the exterior. A late call can assist that or, in the event of a summer shoot (assuming you are northern hemisphere) scheduling this portion towards the winter end of the shoot (assuming that the drama runs over a few weeks/months). We're already one step closer to "perfect" day for night.

Modern technology allows for sky replacements which help a lot. In castaway - although good - you can tell that some digital work was done - both the sky was stripped in and , if I recall correctly, tom hanks has a torch in the scene which looked, to me, like it was tracked in (not that it was bad btw - I'm always noting nonsense like that - goes with the job).

[I Bloom]

I think James and David have it right as usual. Art direction is most responsible for look. And skin tones are the anchor that all other color effects hang from. One thing I'll add is that in situation where you have some control over the foreground, but very little over the background it's possible to color shift the background by shifting the foreground in the opposite direction and then balancing the foreground back to white. So for example to get a green look try adding a small amount of magenta to your key light, and then gray card under the magenta key. As long as you don't push it too hard and or rob your lights of spectrum this works pretty well.

IBloom

[James T Mather]

Yes, IBloom, that is a very nice effect - agreed. Another nightmare I always hit is I live in a country of a particular asthetic (not mine) where WHITE walls are de rigeur (damn you, imported Swedish minimalist aesthetic) and directors often want noirish moody pics. Add to this a lethal mixer of generally small rooms and directors who want actors to improv the scene - often putting them next to the white walls - forcing you to either 1. control the blocking or 2. harder lighting on the actors than you like to stop it getting everywhere. :angry02:

this leads to a flagging nightmare (consequently slower shooting). My constant battle with Production designers is to get them to paint the walls a few shades darker than required in the final piece and ( if going to a DI) generally in a colour spectrum that stays away from skin tones to enable Pogul to work them seperately - Nip/Tucks Green/cyan is pretty good for separation and tone - since adding soft light is more manageable than flagging it - so controlling it as a cameraman is no problem. It's an updated version, I guess, of when art department used to paint shadows on walls. Generally the designer, weilding a pantone chart, will ask questions like "should the walls be bone or ivory?" - when, in fact, I'm looking for something quite a few shades darker. Darker than he'd like.

The upshot of darker walls, I find, is then on the set you can soft light the actors and the walls take care of themselves. You also get credit for 3 things as a result - 1. you light fast and 2. the actors look great. 3. it looks moody.:)

[David Mullen ASC]

Also, there is the old rule that bright areas advance, dark areas recede, so placing a brighter subject against a darker background adds to the three-dimensional effect and draws your eye to the subject. Of course, you could do the reverse (dark subject against bright) if you want to work in silhouettes, assuming the background is uncluttered and non-distracting or out-of-focus...

Paint is (generally) the cheapest form of art direction that has the greatest visual impact, because the walls of a room are in almost every shot except looking straight up or down, or at a huge window. And once you make the decision to paint something, now you can choose the color and whether it is warm, cool, etc.

Although oddly enough, once I started working on mid-budget union films, it become harder to get production to paint walls on location, because of the costs of union painters. I did a movie with a mostly African-American cast ("Akeelah and the Bee") and got into a heated discussion with the line producer because he didn't want us to paint the white-walled location that was the main character's living room. He said it was unaffordable to paint a room (!) -- and this was on a 5-mil feature. I've had rooms painted on half-mil features, so this was odd. Eventually the art director had to promise that he could get it painted (and painted back) within the budget so we did -- and it made a huge difference, of course.

Then a similar thing happened on my last show, which was a 9-mil feature -- we had to turn a classroom into a principal's office by adding a fake wall divider with a glass door in it, to split the space between his office and the receptionist's area. I was told that it would cost $30,000 to put a divider and it was not in the budget. I was scratching my head as to how a flat with a door in it could cost $30,000, but eventually the art director found a way to make it happen, mainly because we never found any other shootable space for the office scene (which is where the climax of the movie took place.)

That's sometimes the "trouble" with coming up from low-budget features, you know certain things are possible if only you had LESS of a budget...

[StevenBills]

Here's a quote from American Cinematographer about Bourne Ultimatum:

"...The cinematographer (Oliver Wood) says... I still think film is the best recording medium, and with a DI I can pull out more information and better information than I could with any of the digital formats I’ve tested. But I shoot film differently than I used to. I don’t use filters at all. The less glass you can put in front of the lens, the better, and I can do that kind of image correction in the DI.”

Emphasis added.

Read full article here (http://www.theasc.com/magazine_dynamic/September2007/TheBourneUltimatum/page3.php).

Steven

[Steve Sherrick]

I believe what David is saying is very true. Even taking the color tones out of it for a moment. The biggest giveaway of a low budget film are bad sound and bad art direction. On the surface, it would seem that a low budget film would have a difficult time with budgeting for art direction. But the reality is you HAVE to make this a priority. It ties everything together. Art direction can say a lot more abut your characters than dialogue a lot of times. It's that perfect combination of lighting, art design, sound, and of course good acting that bring scenes to life.

Fix it in post is not as smart as design it for post.

[Mike S. M.]

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/shadowboxerDVD4.jpg


Nice shot David. Could you give the stock/asa details if you still remember?

[David Wyatt]

One thing I absolutely hate about blueing up a scene in the grade is the horrible magenta/purple colour it makes skin tones go - totally unrealistic and distracting (you can try desaturating a bit but then the skin tones just go greyish & deathly-looking). I think David's tactics are absolutely ideal if your art dept/wardrobe budget can stretch to it.

[DCC Erickson]

in my second short ever, I discovered I could shoot in blue if I didn't color balance my DVX100A ($1,800 on ebay last year). So blue became the color of hell (that's Satan griping about the kind people he has to deal with)

http://mingfilm.com/video/ONTHELASTDAY_trailerSL.mov

The budget was the pizza

That's right - fixed Scarlet for me, unless December 3rd brings chaos and upheaval.

[NateWeaver]

That's sometimes the "trouble" with coming up from low-budget features, you know certain things are possible if only you had LESS of a budget...

This is the paradox of the low budget music video. When I was doing $2K, $4K videos we were always patting ourselves on the back for getting great things in front of the camera.

As soon as we had $15 and $20K to spend per day, all of a sudden you have to pay everybody close to a real rate. Often there's too many elements to make happen, so you have to delegate (as it's supposed to be), but those things cost real money because you're now working on a "real" show!

Things were definitely easier on the $4K jobs!