thedest

Ops! Made my last post while you were posting that! Sorry

haarec, the second example is graded, not color corrected, so it has a color signature - because thats why you grade something. The highlights were actually changed to yellow, using split toning. Part of the shadows is pink, and the other part is blue. And that wasnt done using my eyes and the monitor as a reference. All was done using graphics and numbers. There is no problem with the grading parameters. And again, thats not according to my calibration, thats according to parameters. So if you are seeing bleeding, crushing, halos etc, its because you have a calibration problem. Thats how the vectorscope of your graded shot looks As you can see, even if you are considering "broadcast safe colors" yours is undersatured. And dont forget, mine was not graded for low end TVs, it was callibrated for good displays. When you do that for TV, you shouldnt go over 75%. I went over 75%, but not even close to 100%. Here, the red line shows what you consider a good skin tone in your grading. The blue line shows the color of blood flowing through human skin, regardless of the ethnicity of the person you’re filming. So your skin tone is wrong. I may be wrong, but if you disagree with that, there are only 2 explanations: bad calibration or you just graded it to match your taste, using no paramaters. Thats acceptable, but we cant discuss personal taste.

Yeah. The original one doesnt have a flash or a reflector attached to her face. She is from Bahia, and she got famous because she had a peculiar exotic look, and that includes her "jambo" skin tone. Are you defending your thesis that people with blue eyes can only have fair skin? Are you a racist or something? Or are you just VERY ignorant? Maybe a member of the SS? And please, dont even bother to answer that. Lets not fill this topic with a horrible discussion like that. And let me apologize, IN YOUR NAME, to those people that have darker skin tones and blue eyes.

WOW! I dont think that you know much more than your neighbourhood. There is an entire world out there, my friend. You need to get out of your desk. You just sounded like Hitler right now! That may be one of the most stupid and nonsense comments EVER! Have you ever heard about miscegenation? Let me tell you a secret: even black people can have blue eyes! One of the hottest girls in the planet has a dark skin tone and blue eyes. Let me present you to Adriana Lima.

It depends. Are you color correcting? If so, you are not looking for aesthetics, you are looking for reality. If the reality looks ugly, thats what you will get. There is only one truth. Are you grading? If so, you are creating a look. There is no truth here, only subjective tastes. Both techniques have their place in the world. And Im sorry for being a noob. I may not be as smart as you, but im trying. Im always open to learn new stuff - so, if you have something to teach, other than how to offend...

Yes I did. But I dont like it. It looks too much comercial to me. I only did it to illustrate a subjective taste. Im not a big fan of beauty shots.

haarec, all the colors look very pale and undersaturated. There is too much noise on the right. On my iPad it looks better (I cant see the noise), but thats not a good sign. I think that some of you guys may be using stock calibration on your displays. That means wrong gamma, saturation, blacks, sharpness etc. Most displays and TVs come out of the store with a bad calibration. If you guys are using that kind of calibration you will see my grading with too much sharpening, contrast and saturation - but thats not a problem with the grading. Thats because the monitor is adding MORE saturation, contrast and sharpening over an image that has been graded to the limits of the safe levels. Check that quick test. Its not the best tool to calibrate your monitor, but you can have an idea of what is happening: http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/black.php For example, if in the Black Level page you cant distiguish all the black squares, that will explain why you dont have a good shadow area and more noise on the right. Thats because you have raised your black levels to match your display. If thats true, on my grading the blacks probably look crushed to you. But they are not, as you can see on every NLE graphic. http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/contrast.php In the contrast page, look to the right. If you cant distinguish all the final steps or if the steps dont increase equally, my grading is probably oversaturated for you. You may even see some color bleeding. But thats not a problem with the grading. Again, its your monitor that is creating that. And I repeat, my grading was made to be displayed on well callibrated monitors. Its probably 10% or more over what you would consider broadcast safe. When you do stuff for TV, you have to tone it down, because most TVs are not calibrated. I did this grading because we are reviewing a camera, so its fair to push it to the limits - without creating artifacts. And we are discussing about raw/ProRes. If you work with those codecs, you NEED a well calibrated monitor.

Sorry if my skill is not good enough for you. Do you mind sharing your work, or your knowledge? Can you please share you thoughts? What do you think that looks bad? Halos? Bleeding? Crushing? Blown outs? Bad WB? Cast? Her pimples? Or are your thoughts limited to your vague, subjective and absent of any kind of usefull content observation? Do you like those awesome film convert versions?

Lets talk about art. The example posted by Miller is too soft. Making the entire video soft is not beautifull, its a flaw. Whats the point of using expensive lenses to deliver a soft video?? You can soften a skin texture, but making the entire scene soft is wrong. The video will look like a low resolution out of focus video. With high end codecs, like raw, you can make the skin look soft and sharpen the eyes, for example. Eyes need to look sharp, otherwise the person will look lifeless and the video will look like a distant dream. He is also throwing away good dynamic range. He is blowing out the face of the main subject. She is like a pin up girl, but he graded her like a zombie shot on a low dynamic range camera. Her skin tone is green. One thing is to add a graded color to the scene, to create a mood, the other is to add a color cast that makes the skin tone look horrible. I said it once and I will say it again. Applying pre-set looks like mojo, film convert tools, LUTs etc are not the way to do it. Grading is REALLY easy. You dont need those tricks. And here is my simple grading for commercial use. What did I do? - Made her skin look soft - Gave her a pin-up skin tone - Increased the sharpness and contrast of her eyes, to make them stand out - Changed her eye color, because I like blue - Added a lot of saturation in her lips, to create a sexy look - Increased the sharpness and the saturation of the yellow, to make her hair stand out - Added some split toning (blue and purple) while mantaining her skin tone Now I can see me gaining the contract for the commercial, while James grading would be only usable for an underground alien movie. COMPARE THE 3 VERSIONS:

I understand you Andrew, and I know your style. As I said, if I were grading it for commercial purposes I would do it differently. I would add some split toning, I would fix her skin, maybe enhance the color/clarity of her eyes. But not when testing a camera. As I said, I can see James grading being used on a vodka commercial. Mine wouldnt be accepted. But I can also see my correction being used on a documentary, while James grading wouldnt. The problem with artistic gradings is that our taste is very subjective. And when we try to make too much art when reviewing a camera, we can make people think that the camera has some kind of problem. Its not hard to find people that hate Blackmagic cameras because they think that all Blackmagic videos look surreal, have bad colors, no contrast, color casts and look like old damaged movies. And thats because that kind of "art" wont impress a lot of people. There are lots of people that like the impact of the "you are there" look. My girlfriend hates me when I take pictures of her and I dont hide her pimples. I hate that "Sweet 16 Photo Book" soft glowing look. I like to see details, and Im not alone in this world. When reviewing a camera, its always nice to show the full potential of the camera when recreating a natural scene. Im not against art though. I can appreciate graded videos sometimes, but not every time.

POST PROCESSING FOR DUMMIES: Lesson 1 - My sample is NOT graded, its COLOR CORRECTED using the limit parameters of high-end, well adjusted displays. There is a difference between grading and color correction. Please, start reading again from chapter 1. Lesson 2 - I did nothing to her. She looks just like that. She has wrinkles, freckles, pimples and pores, just like any other human. Have you ever got the chance to see a real woman, or do you only see them on the Playboy magazine? Because let me tell you, there is a tool called Photoshop where you can remove those defects and create the perfect body/skin. When you color correct something, you try to recreate what your eyes can see, and that includes defects. If she looks ugly to you, its because she is an ugly woman. Her skin tone was not altered, it was only saturated to high levels. Lesson 3 - Calibrate your monitor. This was not processed to be delivered on low end TV's. When you want to deliver broadcast content, your black levels and the amount of saturation should be different from the ones that I've used.

Thank you for being sportive. And yes, I understand your point of view, and you understood mine very well too. As I said, I can see his grading being used on a commercial, although I think its a cheap look. It reminds me of the "mojo" pre-set. The point was not to make the model to look better, the point was to show all that the camera can capture, and that includes pimples, scars, pores etc. And to do that you need to sharpen the detail and bring the color as much as possible without bringing artifacts. Thats how you review a camera. We are not reviewing models, although its a much better job ;) When reviewing the camera, they should do those tests more often, instead of using those gradings that have surrealistic looks.

Belo Horizonte?

Spray tan? Are you using a bad monitor? Have you checked your gamma/saturation settings? Bad dye job? You sound like those blog girls that review make ups and chanel purses. Dont get me wrong, but im a man, and I like to see what the camera can show. When im testing a camera, im not searching for good makeups, im looking for what the camera can capture, including bad skin texture, if the skin is like that. If you are in Africa, shooting an old dude that has been under the sun his entire life, would you like to see a soft-baby skin? Please... Thats not a topic about getting a job on a commercial - and let me tell you, the amount of bad commercials these days is HUGE. Maybe because those producers think like you? Anyway, thats a topic about what the camera can capture. Yes, I can se his grading being used on a vodka commercial, but I cant see it selling the camera. When reviewing a camera, they should show everything, not hide skin problems. His skin is blue/green and its glowing with no texture. She looks like an alien. Is it better than a tan? We are not looking at a models portfolio, we are looking at a camera sample. If the model has a bad makeup or a bad skin, the camera needs to show it. And let me tell you another thing guys. If a guy is a pro, it doesnt mean that everything he does looks good. Being a pro only means that you get paid to do something. Please, dont be a fanboy, unless you are getting paid to do it. We are all grown up guys. Being a fan boy is not pretty, if you are a big boy. Those pro gradings look bad, and im pretty sure that every final consumer will think that. Film convert tools and LUTs are a lost cause - and they are the main reason why most prosumers hate Blackmagic cameras. All of those videos look surreal. They are like bad impressionist art. People like to see what their eyes can see. People post bad gradings, with only shades of mid-grey, compressed highlights, bad colors and color casts and use the excuse that its a "filmic" look. ITS NOT! Here is a comparison between film and digital. So stop using that "filmic look" excuse! Its just a grading made by a person with a doubtful taste!

And here is a 4K framegrab graded by me from an original ProRes file from the Blackmagic Production Camera. It was graded to recreate a "real life" look, with enough blacks, lift/gamma/gain, saturation and local contrast CLICK HERE TO SEE IT IN 4K: '> The amount of detail IS amazing. You can see the dials from that womans clock. But then again, you need to bring it to life in post. If anyone is interested, I can share the original graded video, with no youtube recompression.

Dont get me wrong. I really like Blackmagic, and I own one (the pocket), but the main problem with those Blackmagic videos is that the colorists deliver a kind of video that wont impress the average viewer. I bet that most people would rather see a video shot by the crappy AX100 than a video like that one. Why? - This video has no blacks, and that creates a muddy look - It doesnt have enough saturation. It looks lifeless - There is not enough Lift/Gamma/Gain in the highlights. Again, it makes the video dull - Its too soft! I dont know what is happening, but lately, it looks like having sharp videos is a sin. I hate oversharpening and halos, but man, I dont like soft videos either. Whats the point of having a great resolution if you are hiding the details? I dont want to sound ungreatful. I really appreciate the work from those reviewers - but please guys, save those vintage looks for vintage works. When reviewing a camera, try to show out the full potential of the camera. And the best way to do that is to try to recreate a natural, realistic and vivid look, just like our eyes can see.

Your point is correct. But the users are also correct. They are not talking about the amount of detail, they are talking about the PERCEIVED detail. To get a nice looking image you have to know how to ballance the amount of detail captured and the amount of local contrast (sharpening). Most people still use 1080p displays. In my 4k display, I can clearly see the difference in the amount of detail between the 4k prores and a 1080p video, but once you watch both videos on a 1080p display, the difference is not that big. Why? Because if you have a lot of detail and you dont add LOCAL CONTRAST (some people call it sharpening), your detail wont be noticeable. So its totally fair to say that, on a 1080p display, a 1080p raw video from a 5D can "LOOK" more "detailed" than that 4k ProRes video. In reality it wont have more detail, but this detail will be hidden by the lack of local contrast. I dont like oversharpening, but that video is too soft. I know that its a UHD video, but the average person watching that video wont be impressed. And we make videos for the average person.

I think that the main problem is the way that the "pros" grade the footage. They always grade the videos with a soft look, a lot of glow and washed out colors. It looks like they like to recreate that old damaged-film look. I dont know, maybe thats because im young, but I dont like things that look old. Whats the point of buying a high end camera if all of your videos will look like that? I understand doing that once in a while, to create a "look", but every time? And when you are "reviewing" a camera, you need to show its potential, and the videos posted by those guys are not the best way to do that. Here is an example. This first image was graded by James Miller. Most people wouldnt buy a camera that creates that kind of look. And here is the same video graded by me. Why cant they post videos with natural looking colors and sharp details?

Yeah, those MACs are incredible from the point of view of engineering. But thats about it. Apple stuff are also nice fashion gadgets, but when you need the job done, when you need freedom to work with softwares, when you need full compatibility, then you should use something else. MACs are good for: - people that just want a pretty thing - people that will use it for one thing only - and already knows what software they will need If you need to use hundreds of different softwares, and if you need to crack, program, modify stuff, its a no-no

You should train your staff better, because my windows machines are on 24h a day and they never crash.

I dont understand the hype with those mac's. There is nothing special about the hardware and the software is a pain in the ass. You always have compatibility issues. Whats the point of having a software that works if most things wont work with it? And its WAY overpriced. I own an Apple display, and thats enough Apple on my life. I cant live with a system that creates that amount of boundaries

model: Alienware M18x R2 - 3rd gen core i7 OC - 16GB RAM (can be upgraded to 32) - dual 256GB SSDs - dual nvidia geforce GTX 680M (SLI) - I have 2 3TB HDDs (7200RPM SATA 6Gb/s) for heavy files Softwares - Windows 7 - Lightroom - Premiere Pro * You can spec a much cheaper version that can also handle 4k files.

I have 2 256GB SSD`s to run the OS and my softwares - inside the notebook. To store stuff I use external HDDs (7200RPM SATA 6Gb/s), and they are more than enough! With that setup I can handle every single video file from the BM, RED, ALEXA etc

PLEASE, thats NONSENSE. I edit 4k, 5k and 6k video files on my notebook, with no effort. Why does everyone thinks that 4k, ProRes and RAW files demand too much processing power? Thats TOTALLY WRONG. A 1080p AVCHD is SO MUCH WORSE to process. You will need a good computer to deal with highly compressed files. Thats not the case with RAW. RAW is light as a feather. The only thing you will need is storage, and there are lots of cheap solutions for that.