Shian Storm

There's some serious barrel distortion on the perfume spot in some shots.    Andrew your BMCC footage is outrageous. Love the DR.

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/20670/503695e4cb254_ScreenShot20120823at14142PM.png[/img] choose one image and make sure these boxes are checked, this will import all the frames as a clip.

So when creating ProRes444 proxies there is virtually no loss of quality or flexibility, as you can see here. This was rendered from the proxy in AE, and I bent the shit out of this image and gave it a massively oversaturated, bleach bypass "Domino" look (In honor of the departed Tony Scott) and it holds up beautifully. (I had to zoom in 400% to see a infinitesimal amount of pixel blur vs. the DNG). So a proxy based workflow is a definite, and viable option. [url="https://vimeo.com/48098229"]http://www.vimeo.com/48098229[/url]

Have you done a comparison between grading the and exporting the proxies compared to the raw? I'll be doing some tests with both ProRes444 proxies and RAW DNG with heavy grading to see how well they hold up. They should be fine, but I just want to see if there's any breakdown.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1345637635' post='16200'] Nice grade sir. What are you using to grade and edit CinemaDNG? [/quote] I simply used ColorGHear for After Effects. AE has a RAW DNG importer - similar to the R3D importer for Red RAW. [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/20670/50350e6a13fd4_ScreenShot20120821at104816PM.png[/img]

and video EDIT I uploaded this version instead to answer some PM questions and show raw vs. grade [media]http://vimeo.com/48029531[/media]

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/20670/50347f46e6cdc_casey_12220000701_3.png[/img] Similar grade to my last one on the JPG files, this time on the DNG files. Very impressive. A little grainy, but it's a nice grain.

[quote name='Simco123' timestamp='1343260707' post='14514'] The NR and smoothing for me had a negative effect because it actually looks closer to the 5DMkII video. For stills I can understand a temptation to glam up a photo of a lady but for moving images noise and skin blemish is less of an issue than if it were stills. The human eye has a natural NR filter when viewing moving images there is no need to add any more smoothing otherwise the video looks flat. [/quote] There's been a long standing debate about the sharpness of digital being TOO sharp. Speaking as someone who was involved in the leading edge of the digital revolution when I worked as a Colorist. We could instantly see that the Genesis, Viper, and RED footage was too sharp. It didn't look like film, but everyone was okay with that because, at the time, there were no digital cinemas, so we knew our final output would be film. So when we printed the DI out to film, the ultra sharp "video" would pick up the grain and softness inherent in the emulsion process of film, and the final product would look the way it was intended. Now with everything moving towards a pure digital workflow - from acquisition to projection, there is a need to digitally give this new medium that softer look in order to maintain that magical feel of film. You are looking at a still, but I can tell you, when the process is applied to moving images, it is very filmic, as opposed to no "smart" softening. I say smart softening, because there is a marked difference between the soft look of the 5D, and the soft look of film. The grade I did on this footage is not the be all end all of video grading, and was done as a test, and not the kind of look I'd apply to something that was intended for delivery. I could go back and do that, but in this case it was just a quick examination of what had been made available.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1343252070' post='14506'] The grade was great. I preferred it to John's actually. The skin, the muted tones and a very classic movie look... [/quote] Thanks, Andrew.

[quote name='P4INKiller' timestamp='1343229744' post='14490'] It really pains me that they didn't decide to go with a m4/3 friendly mount. It's the only thing stopping me from throwing money at them. My wallet or income isn't big enough for me to stock up on EF glass. [/quote] I agree. I think a m43 option would have been the most versatile, and allowed the largest selection of lenses possible with adapters. But I'm told, future versions will have other mount options including m43 and PL. But we'll just have to wait. If they were really aggressive they would have released with a m43 mount, and with both a PL to m43 adaptor, and an EF adaptor with electronics. Micro 4/3 really should become the standard as it accommodates so many different flange distance options without having to hard mount anything. I'm playing the waiting game with this cam. Could be awesome, could be a nightmare, I guess we'll see.

[quote name='Simco123' timestamp='1343155766' post='14432'] Looks like someone has photoshopped it with a skin smoother filter :o [img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/bmc-small.jpg[/img] [/quote] I graded this, and I can assure you photoshop was not used. This was graded using ColorGHear Toolkit for After Effects. The skin smoothing effect is a feature in ColorGHear called GHrain Killer which can be used to reduce noise and/or smooth out skin detail depending on how you adjust the settings. In this case, because they were stills, I chose not to do any power windows or masks that would normally require a lot of tracking - just to kinda keep the grade honest and simple. As a result you can actually see the GHrain Killer reducing some of the detail on her jacket as well. Normally I would have tracked her face, and only applied the GK to her skin.