Talk:Color grading

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to filmmaking. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article is supported by the Color WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Color-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) in WP Filmmaking

From the article:

In Hollywood, O Brother, Where Art Thou? was the first film to be wholly digitally graded.

Was it? Digital intermediate grading was certainly in use before them, although I can't be sure which film was the first to be digitally graded in its entirety. -- Karada 18:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It was the first Hollywood movie originated on film to be digitally graded from beginning to end. As long as those three qualifiers are put on it is true. See digital intermediate for some history. I am planning to do some more rewrites to this article when I get the time... --Onejaguar 20:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article expansion notes

Here are thoughts/suggestions for article expansion.

• History of color grading: from the advent of Technicolor film, how grading came into practice.
• Explaniation of how photochemical color timing works (optical filters is not wholly correct)
• Hardware involved and evolution thereof: from the Hazeltine to the Spririt and DaVinci 2K
• Evolution of telecine
• Telecine effect on Music videos/commercials/television
• How telecine timing works (pre-power windows) - primaries/secondaries/shaders
• CRT vs CCD telecine scanning
• How telecine timing works (post-power windows, Quantel Domino, Flame, Etc.)
• Evolution of digital intermediate
• Reference to scanning technology/laser technology to make film out on a large scale possible from digital source
• As always - cite references.
• Include photographs/examples

Thoughts? Too much? Not enough? Looks like a lot of work. LACameraman 01:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

First draft revision finished. LACameraman 22:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend deleting the section on significant color timers. Not because there aren't any, but more because the unfortunate likelihood will be that it will be subject to auto-biographical vanity entries by less-than-notable people. Notable enough color timers might warrant having an encyclopedia article, perhaps, and we can always link this article to a Category:Color timers entry. That's my two cents. I don't have too much to say about the actual article content yet; I'll try to do a quick consult with my sources in the coming weeks. Keep up the good work! Girolamo Savonarola 15:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed to the "significant timers" section getting the axe. I knew it was controversial when I put it in there. I felt the article needed a little more grounding, which is why I added it; humanize it a bit and make sure it was known that this process requires human interaction - it's not a computer task and not a task done by just anyone (perhaps there's a little too much politics coloring my editorial there...). I'd like to get a consensus, however, before cutting it. At least I can cite a legit reference for calling these colorists "significant" - which is argument for any future "vanity" additions to the list without reference (IE: Who is identifying them as significant? Some recoginized organization needs to be cited). At this point, I'd vote for keep, but I can be dissuaded. LACameraman 19:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but after seeing some recent edits that seemed a bit vanity/company-centric, I've deleted the section. It's not to say that there aren't significant colorists, but I don't see the pressing need to have the section at the moment, nor do any of the subjects have an article entry that could even be linked to. Plus it inevitably will reek of recentism. IMHO, best to avoid these problems unless there is enough demand for the section in a peer review, FAC, or something similar. Girolamo Savonarola 16:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some References that should be added??

http://www.finalcolor.com/acrobat/Whencolor2.pdf - discusses the functions of color correction The Film into video reference could be updated for the latest edition (2000)

Not sure if this should be included, but information on how to "relight" a scene: [[1]]

[edit] British English

Should the British English spelling of "colour" be used at the start of the article? Benson85 21:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the general convention per WP:MOS is that articles should be regional neutral (aka leave it where it lies) unless the topic is specifically oriented towards a particular geographic region which speaks English. This is mainly to prevent silly edit wars. Being that this article is not about UK or US-centric topics, I'd let it be. Girolamo Savonarola 02:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. --Quiddity 04:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)