I absolutely love beautiful black and white film. Would it be fair to say that aiming for a final product of black and white digital video would be easier to create a film look due to the fact you are not messing with colors. I realize that there is more to it that just the way colors look but that is one less thing to deal with. Can anyone elaborate? Thankyou.

Well... you're still dealing with the DOF issues, compared to say... 35mm. And good B&W film lighting is different than color lighting... especially if you are going after that 'noir' look.

We just finished a B&W future noir piece, that is currently doing the festival circuit. Shot on 35mm, but we are distributing it on DVD. Couldn't afford the final film-out print. For a look at the trailer and some stills go to www.nu-classicfilms.com and take a look at "After Twilight"

Richard, first of all I appreciate all the help that you give me in here. You have responded to several of my posts. Thanks a bunch.
I didn't realize that the stragedy for lighting was different in black & white. I need to do more research on this.
I looked at the movie website. looks great and good luck on the film festival circuit.

Well, color responds differently than black and white to light. And since you are not dressing people or sets in black in white, you have to understand the difference in color 'values' when they are changed to black and white. A must have if you intend to do this, is a black and white monitor on the set. At the very least you have an understanding of what the black and white image will look like, as you sit there in a technicolor environment.

I think it is much easier. But I grew up on Noir and still watch a lot of it.

To create realistic lighting is, in my mind, much more difficult than to create dramatic lighting...

Matt

Noir is beautiful in my opinion.
If a person is going to make a B&W project with digital video, and the camera itself has B&W mode, would you still shoot in color and just use a B&W monitor and take the color away in post?

Steve,

I don't know of any Mini DV cams that 'shoot in black and white'. I think they all shoot in color. The viewfinder can often be set to show in black and white only. Or, as in my case with the FU-1000, it is a black and white viewfinder.

Do a search on this forum, a long thread about just this topic has been covered before.

Actually, I shot my film noir "short" (a lighting test really) in B&W with an XL2 - I did this be adjusting the color gain down to 0. In hindsight I don't know why I bothered to do this instead of just doing it in post and adjusting the color on my production monitor during shooting.

You can see it here:

http://www.birthofthecool.com/films.html

Mathew.

Yeah, I remember the thread now. And I saw your short. Nice stuff. My point was the ccd's don't 'see' black and white the way black and white film sees 'only' black and white. They 'see' in color, and you take it out. Either in post (Which is the best place for it) Or, in camera between the ccd's and the tape.

Old school cameras of course, had color and black and white tubes.

I suggest you shoot in black and white, as it allows more manipulation in post. I have a webpage with pictures showing the kind of things you can do with B&W images.

Playing around with channel blending (equivalent to colored filters in front of the lens): http://www.glennchan.info/fcpugto/shot10-%20Channel%20Blend/shot10.htm

You can also use secondary color correction to play around with your image more:
http://www.glennchan.info/fcpugto/shot11-%20BW%20and%20Secondaries/shot11.htm

You can also use secondary color correction or chroma key to isolate flesh tones, then lower the contrast on it using a color curves plug-in. This can reduce shadows/texture on actor's faces.

Before: http://www.glennchan.info/Proofs/Proofs3/nat-pre-look.jpg
After: http://www.glennchan.info/Proofs/Proofs3/nat-post-look.jpg
Sorry no roll-over there, and the pictures are in color (and the wall is very close to flesh tone color, so it gets affected too).

Monitoring on set: Find a monitor where you can turn the color/saturation down. If not, then there can be advantage to shooting B&W just for the visualization. Of course, you can temporarily shift to B&W in camera for visualization. Many consumer cameras have a B&W effect mode, which you can engage temorarily for visualization.

I would disagree with capture in B+W.

All the camera is doing is de-saturating the image in RT and then recording to tape, which can be *exactly* mimiced in post. On film it's a different issue as B+W exhibits a much wider contrast latitude than colour neg stocks, but with video this is not the case (the CCD is still colour, remember!).

If shot in colour then it is possible to add filtration in post, which can be very handy, and you still hve the options of using colour should you change your mind (for instance, you could decide to go for a bleach-bypass look or a partial desaturation), and this comes at no cost to the original B+W image should you not change your mind. Keep your options open.

Points raised about the differences in shooting B+W vs colour are good, but for my money it's more of a headache for the Art Dept than the DoP, although use of colour filtration on lights and lens can dramatically alter your final image too...

If you are planning on shoting in B+W for the first time, my advice is to shoot a lot of tests, specifically as regards the redition of different colours of clothing, backgrounds etc (as mentioned above). A scene with a green shirt against a red wall might have tons of seperation in colour, but when desaturated you may end up with two identical shades of grey and a subject that sinks into the wall!!

Sorry Glenn, I just re-read your post, and I think in fact I agree with you totally - but I think you mistyped...

Surely you meant shoot in colour as it allows more options in post??!

:)

Oh wow, I had a brainfart there. Heh...

Yes, I did mean shoot in color as it allows more options in post.

While I don't understand the aversion to making a decision and sticking with it (and don't wish to get into a debate over it), I do want to point out the advantage gained by shooting B&W in camera.

First of all CCD's are not color. Single CCD cameras require a filter mask to achieve color. And three CCD cameras use dichroic prisms that split the color to be processed by three seperate CCD's.

Second, the human eye is much more sensitive to changes in brightness than changes in color. Thus compression algorithms choose to compress color more than brightness. By eliminating color from the equation in-camera, the codec isn't stressing over color compression and can be focused on the brightness and contrast resulting in a better, cleaner image.

Interesting. My reasons were much more base! ;>

Really, I just wanted to get into the B&W mindset if you will, especially for a noir. Think of it as "Method Cinematography" - probably stupid to most people here, but for me, as a newcomer to all of this, I thought it was important. The scenes in my head were black and white, my inspiration was black and white. When I looked through the viewfinder or on my monitor (this was just a TV, I hadn't purchased a real production monitor yet) I wanted to see how my lighting looked in black and white.

Needed to get that B&W vibe thing going...

Jon - no aversion to sticking with your decisions, but if there are two ways of doing something with the same end quality and one allows options where the other does not, I'll take the options, every time (remember, we're talking about options in filtration and grading even if you do decide to stick with a B+W image in the end)...

As regards CCD's, yes - good point. I was assuming 3 CCD systems, however, in which the image must be combined into full colour before a desaturation can occur (otherwise the system is effectively applying a colour filtration to the image).

As regards the "more data head-room for desaturated images" argument, it's one I've seen and heard many times. On paper it's a *very* good point, however the DV codec is the DV codec, and is not optimised for monochrome performance and thus does not use this headroom in any way - you do not get lower compression with monochrome images. If the camera had a system to use a completely different codec in monochrome code, then yes, this would lead to higher quality final images - but it is not the case (at least not in any camera I have used).

Matthew: Doesn't sound stupid at all - if it works for you to shoot that way, then shoot that way!! Also, if you are definitely going to be shooting for B+W (as it sounds like you are), then you won't fall foul of any nasty suprises when you desaturate the image. You could, however, get the best of both worlds by shooting in colour but having your monitor set up with the colour turned right down to render a B+W image. A word of warning, though: DO NOT trust TV's as monitors for rendition of colour or for exposure - you'll get burnt. Look through the VF and judge it on that (and of course with zebras etc as normal, for exposure).

On a total point of pedantry, noir doesn't have to be black and white, of course!!! ;)

While I won't argue that you get lower compression by recording a B&W image, I will say that in my experience the type of color compression artifacts that arise from 4:1:1 sampling and the DV25 codec are eliminated when switching a capable camera into B&W mode. Such compression artifacts as blocky edges around reds and color "bleeding" are gone. Leaving you with what appears to be a much cleaner and clearer picture.

In my experience, in-camera B&W (for the above mentioned reasons), produces a better picture and thus is not the same quality as doing it in post.

I'll admit that I am likely coming from a different perspective than most others. But thought I'd share my opinion on the matter anyway.

Also, for what it's worth... I'm of the opinion that ANY CRT monitor professional or otherwise is far superior to ANY LCD viewfinder. Sure, a blatantly uncalibrated/overtuned consumer TV could do just as much harm as not using a monitor at all. But it's really not hard to set even a consumer TV to damn near the proper calibration. Regardless, always use those zebras.

I agree that noir doesn't have to be black and white. And for those on the fence about shooting color with options or if you don't have a camera that is capable of shooting in B&W, then any shifting of the color to a significantly lower saturation level is not a bad idea. By lowering the color saturation, you at least minimize the type of compression artifacts that befall 4:1:1 sampling and the DV25 codec. And you may even find that the lower color saturation did the trick for you without having to go all the way.

But I personally feel that shooting in B&W is a better way of working for me.

Fair play mate, of course you should do what your experience tells you to do...

I have to say that - whilst I know what you're saying re: CRT's - you need to be *bloody* careful, and the LCD/EVF should be your decision making tool, especially as regards exposure, imho. I was seriously burnt a couple of times on the first few digital shoots I lit because of overriding my decisions based on the output of an uncalibrated CRT monitor.

This is especially true under partially lit situations (such as night shoots, or - for that matter - noirish lighting).

By all means use a monitor, they are very handy - but to all people who are planning on using TV's just *please* be careful if it's not a calibrated, dedicated monitor. It's for your sake not mine!!!

BTW Jon, this advice is not aimed at you, but rather at those at the beginning of their DoP experience...

Oh, and interesting point about colour comp artifacts - not something I'd noticed, although the cameras I use are 4:2:0 or 4:2:2, which may lessen this effect (I'm no expert on this colour seperation business, and in fact wouldn't mind a decent tech run-down of the issue, if someone has the time...).

Cheers!

Yes, I've recently purchased a 14" Sony production monitor - my life has gotten much easier. One question, the monitor has handles so I'm thinking I could use it on location, provided there was a power source. I know this also probably seems stupid as in "of course you could", but is it bad for the monitor to be lugging it around? I haven't been able to find a case for it yet and thought maybe there was a reason.

Best,

Matt

http://www.justcases.com/monitorcases.html

I think one of the first projects I'm gonna do when I finally get my camera is make a black and white movie about Christmas. I sort of already know what I want to make it look like. I love the look of old-world Christmas.(especially in B&W) I'm gonna use forced-perspective effects using 30s and 40s style toy cars in front of my house to give that period look. Lots and Lots of music from that era. It'll be sort of my version of "It's a Wonderful Life" This will be so fun.

<<<-- Originally posted by Dominic Jones : As regards the "more data head-room for desaturated images" argument, it's one I've seen and heard many times. On paper it's a *very* good point, however the DV codec is the DV codec, and is not optimised for monochrome performance and thus does not use this headroom in any way - you do not get lower compression with monochrome images. If the camera had a system to use a completely different codec in monochrome code, then yes, this would lead to higher quality final images - but it is not the case (at least not in any camera I have used). -->>>

I'd have to respectfully disagree with this. For a monochrome image, the two chroma channels remain constant, and will compress using very little space. For low detail images, you wouldn't see much of a difference, and for very busy images, you'll still see compression artifacts, but for "ideal" images, you should achieve approximately 30% reduction in quantization artifacts.

Moreover, as Jon points out, the colour artifacts have a nasty habit of slipping through. If you just use a "Desaturate" filter, they'll be particularly prominent, because the image that you're left with is "lightness", not "luminance". Even if you correctly extract the luminance, if you're intending to use the colour information to modify the image, then you'll still inevitably see some of the colour artifacting.

Sure, I understand what you're saying, but I was unaware (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the extra bandwidth was used to allow for better quality in the monochrome part of the image. There's no benefit to having an abundance of spare bandwidth, after all...

Jon's points re: colour artifacting are good, as I mentioned before, and not something I had considered - although, as you point out, they should not affect a properly desturated image and, although they may creep in again with the use of post filtering, at least the option is still available to you, if desired.

My position is, I think, unchanged - I'd rather shoot in colour and deal with the desat in post, and I think it's possible to get an image of equal quality through this method - but after all of the fantastic discussion here I will have to do some testing before I set out to shoot B+W footage!!

Thanks all!

Yes, the "extra bandwidth" will be used, but it's not only that. The way that the signal is compressed uses adaptive quantization to "round off" the AC coefficients until the signal can be run-length encoded to 1/5 of the original size. Since the AC coefficients for the chroma channels in a monochrome image are always zero, they can be very efficiently compressed, meaning that the coefficients for the luminance channel don't need to be compressed as much to fit into the remaining space, but also that they (the chroma channels) can be compressed without error.

The colour artifacts can affect even a "correctly desaturated" image if your camera uses 0-255 (which most do) rather than 16-235 for luminance and 16-240 for chrominance, and the codec on your computer doesn't scale before converting to RGB. If the codec does scale, then you've introduced further quantization errors, and lost about 13% of your dynamic range. Moreover, as soon as you start using the colour information to adjust the luminance (which is the only reason that you'd want to retain the colour information) then the artifacts will appear.

Ah right, well then in that case I will humbly change my position! I was under the impression from previous debates that the compression was not adaptive - good info to know...

Thanks a lot!

:)