Cinegain Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Well, you want the warmth in the right places. So, what I do is, I treat the highlight, mid and shadow areas separately. No tricky masks or anything. Just three way color wheels. If you do it globally, it indeed won't work that well. You can also create more weird Hollywood looks like this by contrasting shadows/mids/highlights with eachother if you don't like realistic/accurate... Your kitchen & you're the chef. Whatever you like best, but just about anything is doable in post. You can create your own LUTs of course. The one provided works as a solid base in a bunch of cases probably. But I would take care in some cases. The discussed way of shooting preserves the best information so it seems, so that's definitely good stuff. mercer, shanebrutal and jonpais 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orangenz Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 4 hours ago, tomsemiterrific said: I think your critique is valid in this clip--and is probably due to my grading. CF enables you to do a lot with reds/yellows. The image to too blue IMO. But what about the couple I shot later and the landscapes? I think your one gets it right for this shot. CG makes it look too dark and turns her skin brown. tomsemiterrific 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomsemiterrific Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 27 minutes ago, Orangenz said: I think your one gets it right for this shot. CG makes it look too dark and turns her skin brown. I agree---it looked quite under exposed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orangenz Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 There's maybe a couple of shots that seem off, like the two people, but the rest nail it. Every shot with just the eos lut look red. How are you getting rid of the red tint? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 13 hours ago, tomsemiterrific said: I agree---it looked quite under exposed. Hi Tom - are you adding sharpening in post? Also, if what you are after is a cinematic look, I would try to avoid such harsh lighting conditions.. Here's an image (not same camera) with sharpening turned all the way down in camera, none added in post, shot at around 11:00am, which is far from ideal for a good image. The in-camera sharpening is still obtrusive to my eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomsemiterrific Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 8 hours ago, jonpais said: Hi Tom - are you adding sharpening in post? Also, if what you are after is a cinematic look, I would try to avoid such harsh lighting conditions.. Here's an image (not same camera) with sharpening turned all the way down in camera, none added in post, shot at around 11:00am, which is far from ideal for a good image. The in-camera sharpening is still obtrusive to my eyes. When you say Harsh lighting conditions what are you referring to--the screen shots or the video I posted--and yes, I turn sharpening off completely when shooting and only ad light sharpening to images in post (2.5 in FCPX). But I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically. 18 hours ago, Orangenz said: There's maybe a couple of shots that seem off, like the two people, but the rest nail it. Every shot with just the eos lut look red. How are you getting rid of the red tint? Good question. In Color Finale Pro you can reduce the three color channels separately. I lower the red channel, but some footage did not seem to need it. Davey 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 4 hours ago, tomsemiterrific said: When you say Harsh lighting conditions what are you referring to--the screen shots or the video I posted--and yes, I turn sharpening off completely when shooting and only ad light sharpening to images in post (2.5 in FCPX). But I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically. it's subjective of course, but I think the shots in your video would benefit from less sharpening in post. I seldom add any sharpening, but if I do, it's only maybe 1 or 1.5 in FCP. Your images would look sharp enough without any additional sharpening I'm guessing. If you check out Iamoui's beautiful Baltimore video, you'll see that in this clip, he carefully avoids shooting in situations where he's got to sacrifice either important shadow or highlight detail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomsemiterrific Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 30 minutes ago, jonpais said: it's subjective of course, but I think the shots in your video would benefit from less sharpening in post. I seldom add any sharpening, but if I do, it's only maybe 1 or 1.5 in FCP. Your images would look sharp enough without any additional sharpening I'm guessing. If you check out Iamoui's beautiful Baltimore video, you'll see that in this clip, he carefully avoids shooting in situations where he's got to sacrifice either important shadow or highlight detail. I think you may have a good point about over sharpening. I usually sharpen at around 2.0 or 2.5. It depends. If I'm shooting a close up I don't sharpen much at all. If the person is further away, waist or below, then I will sharpen more. In the big establishing shots or landscapes I'll tend to sharpen to prevent the details looking muddy. On another subject I just got a G85---and I like the image it produces a lot. But as a blogging camera the AF hunts! Disappointing. Canon is SO much better---XC15, 70 and 80D---I sure hope the GH5 is better at holding AF in talking head shots. And thanks I'll definitely check out Lamoui's video. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 7 hours ago, tomsemiterrific said: I think you may have a good point about over sharpening. I usually sharpen at around 2.0 or 2.5. It depends. If I'm shooting a close up I don't sharpen much at all. If the person is further away, waist or below, then I will sharpen more. In the big establishing shots or landscapes I'll tend to sharpen to prevent the details looking muddy. On another subject I just got a G85---and I like the image it produces a lot. But as a blogging camera the AF hunts! Disappointing. Canon is SO much better---XC15, 70 and 80D---I sure hope the GH5 is better at holding AF in talking head shots. And thanks I'll definitely check out Lamoui's video. I would be dumbfounded if the GH5 is able to maintain focus for all of two minutes in a talking head shot in AF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orangenz Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 1 minute ago, jonpais said: I would be dumbfounded if the GH5 is able to maintain focus for all of two minutes in a talking head shot in AF. At the moment all we have is a sentence from Matt Fraser saying he tried it for the vlog context and it locked on solidly. Not long now! jonpais and tomsemiterrific 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomsemiterrific Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 7 hours ago, Orangenz said: At the moment all we have is a sentence from Matt Fraser saying he tried it for the vlog context and it locked on solidly. Not long now! Well, the G85 locked on to the face and to one eye--and seemed like it worked well, but then I noticed after a minute or so the camera tended to want to "jump" or hunt. I didn't move off the face, but you could definitely see it want to jump in the movement of the background. The only solution I know? Shoot in manual and use a higher F-stop---and don't weave if you're the presenter. How is it Panasonic, which is a very inventive company, cannot create reliable face focus that does not hunt three years after the 70D and 80D!?! 8 hours ago, jonpais said: I would be dumbfounded if the GH5 is able to maintain focus for all of two minutes in a talking head shot in AF. Checked out Baltimore--lovely, expressive shots. Thanks for recommending it.I see what you mean by over sharpening and the nice, soft visual effect....definitely more filmic and less video-like. By the way in shooting outside how well do you find the AWB works? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 1 hour ago, tomsemiterrific said: Checked out Baltimore--lovely, expressive shots. Thanks for recommending it.I see what you mean by over sharpening and the nice, soft visual effect....definitely more filmic and less video-like. By the way in shooting outside how well do you find the AWB works? I wish Iamoui could do an entire series like that of different cities. As far as white balance goes, I never use AWB. First, I adjust the Kelvin temperature, 5300 degrees or whatever it happens to be. This might freak you out a bit, but I do this by pointing the camera at the pavement or the road if I'm outdoors and raising or lowering the temperature on the Kelvin scale. Often, it will still have a color cast, so then I go into the WB graph and make small adjustments. Then, I poke the camera around and make sure people's faces and everything else looks good. I told you this was going to be weird! This was shot on the X-T2, but I adjust color the same way on all my cameras. (screen shot from video clip) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercer Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 On 1/31/2017 at 1:26 PM, Cinegain said: Well, you want the warmth in the right places. So, what I do is, I treat the highlight, mid and shadow areas separately. No tricky masks or anything. Just three way color wheels. If you do it globally, it indeed won't work that well. You can also create more weird Hollywood looks like this by contrasting shadows/mids/highlights with eachother if you don't like realistic/accurate... Your kitchen & you're the chef. Whatever you like best, but just about anything is doable in post. You can create your own LUTs of course. The one provided works as a solid base in a bunch of cases probably. But I would take care in some cases. The discussed way of shooting preserves the best information so it seems, so that's definitely good stuff. Nice job with this. I recently started messing around with the basic color board in FCPX and I am really enjoying the ability to adjust Saturation separately in the highs, mids and lows. And then some simple curves or telecine wheels adjustment in Color Finale makes for a simple workflow... of course I've been shooting a lot in slog2 and slog3 lately, so that becomes a different beast and beyond my skill set. tomsemiterrific 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomsemiterrific Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 4 hours ago, mercer said: Nice job with this. I recently started messing around with the basic color board in FCPX and I am really enjoying the ability to adjust Saturation separately in the highs, mids and lows. And then some simple curves or telecine wheels adjustment in Color Finale makes for a simple workflow... of course I've been shooting a lot in slog2 and slog3 lately, so that becomes a different beast and beyond my skill set. I hate working with S-Log. The only thing worse than Sony color is Sony Log. In contrast, Canon Log is wonderful to work with...that's my story and I'm sticking to it. mercer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercer Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 4 minutes ago, tomsemiterrific said: I hate working with S-Log. The only thing worse than Sony color is Sony Log. In contrast, Canon Log is wonderful to work with...that's my story and I'm sticking to it. I'm a pretty good colorist, except for the red, green and blue channels... I suck at those. tomsemiterrific 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomsemiterrific Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 4 minutes ago, mercer said: I'm a pretty good colorist, except for the red, green and blue channels... I suck at those. After years of working with Sony I finally realized you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. mercer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercer Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Just now, tomsemiterrific said: After years of working with Sony I finally realized you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Yeah but, when it's right it looks so cool. Daniel Peters' videos look great. I have a theory that there are 2 or 3 looks that Sony cameras excell at... unfortunately I am incapable of reproducing those looks... So I am learning to settle for crunchy contrast and nuclear waste green. tomsemiterrific 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomsemiterrific Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 16 hours ago, mercer said: Yeah but, when it's right it looks so cool. Daniel Peters' videos look great. I have a theory that there are 2 or 3 looks that Sony cameras excell at... unfortunately I am incapable of reproducing those looks... So I am learning to settle for crunchy contrast and nuclear waste green. I agree. I see Sony videos that look good, but I've never been able to replicate them, and I've never gotten good results with S-Log--LUT after LUT SUCKS. When I have been able to get something that wasn't horrible it took a ridiculous amount of time. It's just not worth the grief and time. I'll take Canon color and Canon log every day and twice on Sunday. Yes, Canon cost and niggardly, balkanized features are maddening, but the time you save in achieving a good look and great looking skin tones---well, it's hard to put a price on satisfying results without tearing your hair out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercer Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 1 hour ago, tomsemiterrific said: I agree. I see Sony videos that look good, but I've never been able to replicate them, and I've never gotten good results with S-Log--LUT after LUT SUCKS. When I have been able to get something that wasn't horrible it took a ridiculous amount of time. It's just not worth the grief and time. I'll take Canon color and Canon log every day and twice on Sunday. Yes, Canon cost and niggardly, balkanized features are maddening, but the time you save in achieving a good look and great looking skin tones---well, it's hard to put a price on satisfying results without tearing your hair out. Again, I am a horrible colorist, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I have found input/utility/conversion LUTS to be horribly inconsistent. Unless the LUT creator knows your exact in camera settings, exposure, etc..., then it will be hard to get a proper baseline. However I do like Film Print Emulation export LUTS at the end of the coloring process to add a little bit of depth to the image. With all that being said, there are a couple basic utility LUTS that work fairly well and for slog I have found the LUTS made for Arri work the best. Also, it seems the camera profiles with FilmConvert work pretty damn good too. Sorry for the off topic. tomsemiterrific and Souto 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonysss Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 . jonpais 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.