What are your methods for softening 4k video?

[SR]

6 minutes ago, mercer said:

Does the Tiffen variable have hard stops?

Afraid not.

[kidzrevil]

I use either the tiffen black satin or black pro mist 1/4-1/2. I like the highlight rolloff of the diffusion, it helps control contrast a lil as well. Mild gaussian blur helps with the potential sharpening artifacts 

 

[kidzrevil]

do you guys prefer resolve for editing and gradinig over premiere ? I never used it before but I am interested @Zach Goodwin @Geoff CB

[Axel]

On 27. April 2016 at 8:16 PM, mkabi said:

Question re: Tiffen DFx

You see, I'm interested in a color correction app as well and this provides that.... I really want an all-in-one solution.

How is this compared to Resolve? Anyone use Red Giant Looks? How does it compare to Looks? (Cause I've been using Looks).

You should watch one of those colorists' show reels how they treat an average shot by rigorously re-lighting it and put a multitude of combined nodes with tracked vignettes in them to it. I am sure that Resolve contains every filter of the Tiffen DFx suite - and Resolve is free AND better for general CC. If you know how to do it. 

So it's my own evidence of incapacity that I recommend this collection of instant effects. I didn't buy them yet. I had those sterile FS7-shots, and the trial saved me.

Above some seem to prefer glass diffusion over post. I'm curious to learn why. Remember the first Ursa Mini shots? People suspected some kind of blooming bug:

The filmmaker explained he had 'messed with some diffusion filters'. That's the problem. These *expensive* filters have a very subtle effect if they are good. And they are hard to judge through an EVF or on a monitor, even if that's at least an HD one. I think he should have 'taken off the edge' in post. Much better to control. But with BM footage, there is no such edge anyway. 

That glass is better than post imo belongs to those modern myths. Like:

> you should always make an exact white balance metering before shooting!

Why on earth? There is no white, neutral light in real life. You'll have a harder time matching all those completely different looking shots in post, whereas with fixed settings you just had to compensate for clouds and things like this. 3200, 5600 and ("winter") 6500K is all one ever needs.

> an 8-bit image has all the values baked in, whereas a raw image offers you total freedom!

Bullshit. That implies that the two were fundamentally different. What is, for instance, CinemaDNG? A sequence of *jpegs* (spatially highly compressed) in 12-bit, all values effectively baked in. The difference to, say, AVCHD, is that you have more freedom to change them. That's all.

> don't "fix it in the post"!

Sounds as if it were better to make everything in-camera. But you can't do that because modern cameras either are too smart (having too many parameters fixed by the electronics) or too dumb (LOG with little to tweak). So you have to do some post. You just should be aware of that.

[TheRenaissanceMan]

2 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

do you guys prefer resolve for editing and gradinig over premiere ? I never used it before but I am interested @Zach Goodwin @Geoff CB

I switched from premiere to resolve when 12 came out and couldn't be happier. Great editor, powerful color tools.

[Bioskop.Inc]

In the end, its up to the person shooting. IMHO i prefer to do as much in-camera as is humanly possible - whether that be choice of lens, filters etc...

Yeah, there's always going to be a program/app that can do this or that - great marketing, gotta love it! But why not see what's available in your NLE already, because lets face it, that's what these people are using as a baseline anyways.

Testing is really the way to go - look at how most films choose their cameras.

In the end, in-camera effects were around for 100yrs before digital came along - its all been done & tested for you (there's certainly a youtube video or two, or even a Book on the subject). Paying £200, instead of doing some research & then picking up a few secondhand filters is simply pissing your money up against the wall - IMHO

[kidzrevil]

@Bioskop.Inc definitely agree with you, it works better for me to get as much done in camera as possible, especially since I shoot using an 8bit dslr ! I refuse to shoot without filter and I have fell victim to buying a bunch without testing but its cool cause each filter looks different on varying lenses.

[Axel]

25 minutes ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

In the end, in-camera effects were around for 100yrs before digital came along - its all been done & tested for you (there's certainly a youtube video or two, or even a Book on the subject). Paying £200, instead of doing some research & then picking up a few secondhand filters is simply pissing your money up against the wall - IMHO

You are right. I just wanted to stress that one shouldn't make a dogma from anything. Artists have been performing "post" long before computers were invented. Surely the most fun comes from finding, making, forging things to become worth filming. 

[Bioskop.Inc]

52 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

@Bioskop.Inc definitely agree with you, it works better for me to get as much done in camera as possible, especially since I shoot using an 8bit dslr ! I refuse to shoot without filter and I have fell victim to buying a bunch without testing but its cool cause each filter looks different on varying lenses.

If you're using 8-bit (doesn't matter the resolution), you need to get it as good as you can right out of the box - post should be for correcting white balance, saturation & very minor colouring - editing some 8-bit footage ATM & its limiting.

48 minutes ago, Axel said:

You are right. I just wanted to stress that one shouldn't make a dogma from anything. Artists have been performing "post" long before computers were invented. Surely the most fun comes from finding, making, forging things to become worth filming. 

I loved your comments about RAW DNG files - great if you shoot right, crap if you don't (there's a difference between fixing & butchering in post). Using the Pocket, which has RAW, but I never use it anymore - ProRes HQ all the way & have even started to use Video mode instead of Film (Video mode much improved in BM cameras).

DSLRs & Professional cameras are completely different things, and yes, I lump BM cams in with the later - that's the gift BM gave us all (cheap affordable Professional type cams, but with small company problems).

Side note: Beginners who buy BM cameras should test in Video mode, to find out what the limitations/results should be, then move to Film mode & finally to RAW (it would save sooo much hassle in the long run).

There's a great quote by Keith Richards, or is it Zappa, when asked how you become a great guitar player - practice, practice, practice.

In camera terms test, test, test - just don't always show/bore the world with every minute aspect of it.

[Geoff CB]

5 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

do you guys prefer resolve for editing and gradinig over premiere ? I never used it before but I am interested @Zach Goodwin @Geoff CB

I'm using premiere mainly because I know it. I want to move Resolve, but I've had issues with audio (audio lags behind video when performance drops, needs to ad some advanced tools) and output (4K H264 is not supported in windows, no image stretch options on export, other issues). Currently it does not see the audio from NX1 files. Will probably continue to use both depending on the project. 

I do prefer the menus and file organization in Resolve.