My Camcorder video looks dull! Is post processing a sin? DISCUSSION!

Videos are made to be watched.

Before reading and writing in this topic, just think about this.
If you know a lot about hardware and post, please share your knowledge without creating unnecessary fights.

First of all, Im a medic. Im dont do videos for a living. Everything I know about hardware, shooting videos and editing I learned by myself, so dont judge me. If you are a speciallist, teach the others, dont insult them, because I dont insult a pacient that can not operate himself!

___________________________________________________________

Ok. People complain a lot about how camcorder videos look. They say they look dull and dead.
They say that because they compare camcorder videos with the ones made with compacts and DSLR`s. I was one of them.
Reading some topics here and there I learned the correct parameters to analyze if a video is good or not. I learned that there is a BIG difference between a good video and a video that looks good.

I learned that some camcorders produce VERY good videos, much better than the ones made with DSLR's and compacts, but they dont look as good. So I decided to play a little with some SIMPLE editing tools. Recently (because of mark) I bought a Sony GW77. I learned that its a very nice camera that produce extremely nice videos. It has that "dullness" though.

So I downloaded a few videos from Mark (made with a GW77) and played with them a little, to see how good they can look with some editing. I learned that the "dullness" i probably because of the lack of black and colors, and the excess of grey in the videos. The point is, that dull look gives you a lot of space to work. Sure its not a 12-bit RAW, but its something!

And I know you lose some of the original quality. I always keep the originals with me. But you dont make videos to keep them in a hard drive. You make videos to show your trips to your friends and family. And for that I think that post is essential. The originals are just boring and flat.

Do an exercise. Sit you daughter, your wife and your granddaughter in your living room. Play the original video and the processed one. I bet they'll sleep or get out before the end of the first one.

The originals, although they preserve the most of the camera capabilities, they lack the WOW effect. Will you make it look artificial? Will you lose something? YES! WHO CARES?! The important is to get the attention of the ones you love.

My objective in this thread is to learn how to take the most of my videos. I want to learn how to make them look WOW!

Thanks in advance for the advices

ps: sorry for the english. English is just my fourth language.

SAMPLE

This video sample was made with some of Mark`s videos. All credits go to him.
The editing process was really simple and took me like 15-20 minutes. Remember that it was rendered and compressed 3 times. The originals look waaaay better.
In a big screen, the full edited video LOOKS GOOD. It was rendered in very high quality. Of course you lose something, but for normal people, the quality is there!

Please, share your thoughts.

LINK: https://vimeo.com/57979771


SCREENCAPS:

ORIGINAL(LEFT)_________________X________________EDITED(RIGHT)

ps: I didnt use any advanced tools, only basic stuff. I know how to use them, masks etc.
If I had the time I could do better.

So lets talk in topics

COLORS

People talk about unnatural and unrealistic colors all the time. I film a lot of surgeries. When im recording them I need realism to document the tissues. Whats the point of realism in entertainment videos? And can you point out specific moments where my editing produced unrealistic results? My adjusts were minimum. Maybe my eye is not good enough. I learned how to edit videos in the last couple days, so im just an apprentice.

STILL CAMERAS

There are many types of still cameras, youve got to be more specific. First of all I think still cameras are inferior in many ways. They have time limit, temperature issues, less sharpness, more artifacts etc. About the looks of the videos I think its a matter of user profile.

In some still cameras you can work only with pre-sets. That way you can get that bright and vivid look straight out of the camera. Thats good if you dont like do individualize your videos. If you want to edit them, work the shadows, highs, lows, colors etc, then this camera is not for you

In camcorders you get that flat look. They are not good on the eyes straight out, but once you throw them in the editor, you have more space to work. You will only understand this if you try for yourself. Some of the adjusts I made are impossible to be done in a still camera with user friendly pre sets.

And we have some nice still cameras that work both ways. They can use those pre sets, with their facilities AND limitations for post, and they have the option to turn those software adjusts OFF. When you do that, guess what happens? Your still camera produces videos that look like camcorder videos - flat and dull. That way you can work them the way you want. If you want to see that, mark posted 2 comparison shots from the LX7. One has that vivid look you like. The other has those pre-sets off and looks like a camcorder footage. Throw that last one in the hands of a good editor. I guarantee that he can make it look 100 times better than the first one. Simply because he has no interference. All the shots give him the liberty to go the way he wants to go to achieve the WOW effect.

Thats my opinion. Feel free to disagree

Vegas 12 pro. In this example I used only basic and quick adjusts. Took me 15-20 minutes. With more time, using masks in the right places, using more light adjusts im certain that it would look 10 times better, but I'll only waste my time in MY videos. My camera arrives this week and im just practicing

Bill, let me tell you what Im doing.

3 days ago I downloaded Vegas Pro 12. I knew simply NOTHING about editing. NOTHING. Contrast? RGB? Curves? Gamma? Those were aliens for me. So I went to youtube and typed:

- vegas pro tutorial
- video editing
- vegas cinematic look
etc

you will be amazed on how much you can learn there. If you want more, I guarantee that you can find hundreds of free tutorials using google. A paid course will be probably nice, but I dont think its necessary at the begining. You can learn a lot by yourself. Once you understand how things work, you can discover the rest by yourself.. The rest you learn watching other peoples videos in youtube etc.

My editor life has les than 72h, and Im alredy achieving decent results.

Thats a nice tutorial, check out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WozBxv9RnY

You can find hundreds more in youtube.

I really liked that lynda.com tutorial pack. I just downloaded the full package (more than 2GB of video tutorials from them) for the premiere pro CS6

Vegas pro was the only one I've ever used, but it looks like the adobe premiere pro has some nice features too. Im downloading it as we speak. I'll test both to see wich one makes me happier!

And yes, I agree with you: the basic versions have enough features for most users. I just like to try everything. Watching very quickly some of the videos from the tutorial package Im starting to think that I'll probably stick with the Adobe CS6. It looks less complicated and more complete, except for audio editing. Anyway, I'll try it out for a couple days. Lets see what happens.

First of all, when you edit a video, you can use your creativity to make it look the way you want, so everything others say is just a matter of opinion.

If you dont mind, I'll share my opinion in this situation:

- First of all: This video was made in a hard light condition. Even the RX100 with its amazing sensor had some difficulties. Thats the kind of footage where you cant make miracles. Its never going to look awesome. The RX100 already made a good work with the pre-sets, not leaving space for you to work in post though.

- The RX100 was using too much pre-sets, and thats my point of camcorders against still cameras. If you had used some manual controls to lower the settings enough to make them look neutral and dull like a camcorder, you would be able to work more in post processing. The blacks of this video cant be corrected in post that way. Try to shoot neutral videos and you will have more range to work.

- Notice that as you took away some of the black you created strange looking stuff, specially below the hats. In my opinion you should've tried to preserve that black.

- You have a dark scene. I noticed that you tried to make it brighter and more colorful. The only way this would end up nice is if you were working with more bits, like in a black magic with 12-bit RAW. We have to know our limits when editing, otherwise strange stuff will show up.

- I made a version with my vision of the scene. In the list you can see what I've done

- Black bars on top and bottom
- I did that to create a film look. This creates a better atmosphere for the scene. Adds drama.

- Added a black vignette on the borders.
- This will increase the drama and will focus the attention on the subject of the center of the screen. It will help to hide some of the limitations of the camera in low light situations.

- Lowered the saturation
- There are lots of bizarre creatures in the video, so I tought that they would look better when less colorful.

- Lowered the gama
- That way I can keep the dark places (with all of their defects) dark. That way I can avoid strange looking shadows. When you lower the gama you gain more color, so I can compensate for the less amount of saturation

- Lowered the gain
- Too much gain and your video is grey and boring. In the other way it gets too much dark and saturated. I found the sweetspot for me.

- Lowered the offset
- Again, to optimize the shadows - the great challenge of your video

- Raised the sharpness
- Bizarre creatures ask for more sharpness, so you can see their details better. Since they are the focus, they deserve more sharpness.

- Slow motion
- more drama

- Nice sound track
- more drama


LINK FOR THE VIDEO: https://vimeo.com/58045751

At the begining you can see the comparisons. At the end you can see my vision in full screen - watch until the end.
Remember that it was rendered 3 times and compressed. I did everything in average quality, so unfotunately you wont be able to see how cool it looks with more sharpness!

If you find such a place, please share with me!

Just finished my course of Adobe Premiere Pro CS6. I have in my computer the Vegas Pro 12 and the CS6 and I can tell you that the CS6 is sooooo much powerfull. You cant believe what kind of adjusts you can make!

The course is very basic, but thats great for beginners like us. It covers everything you need to know to start editing. Now im really confortable with the software. At the moment I am learning more advanced stuff in youtube, in channels like this one http://www.youtube.com/user/creativecowofficial/featured. At this point I know all the basics. All I got to learn now is the tricks. Some people use a combination of basic tools to get amazing results, and that kind of stuff you only learn that way.

I just saw a video from a guy teaching an amazing thing. He explained how digital videos are poor compared to films. He showed that between the 1080 lines of the digital video you have gaps. There is a method in adobe that you can fill those gaps. The density that you get is UNBELIEVABLE. Its better than color correction! That kind of stuff you cant learn in a course, you gotta learn with people with more experience.

I downloaded the course via torrent. If you want more information about that, you should use PM, because I got it via unorthodox ways, and I dont mind to share it.

LOL I love when people think that they are smarter than the others

Ungermann, if you want to be sarcastic, make sure you know more than everyone. The internet is not the best place to think that you are the smartest. Its a good place to be humble and helpful though.

Before answering you, let me just thank you for your helpful post, my friend. Your words made this thread a better place, and we all appreciate it.

Now to the answer:

- Let me teach you how to interpret a text. The amazing thing is not the existing gaps between the lines. The amazing thing is that there is a way to correct that. Do you know how? If you know how, can you teach us, or is your tallent restricted to irony?

- The gaps between the pixels on TV's has nothing to do with this. Those gaps are a physical problem, and they can only be corrected with the development of a new technology. Although you have demostrated great ignorance on the subject, dont worry, I wont be sarcastic with you.

- The gaps between the lines I was talking about are a digital problem. They are created because of the physical limitations of the sensor. Those gaps make the image look less dense than film images.

Although im already teaching you, holder of great knowledge, that fact, Im just an apprentice in the editing world. Im perfecting my technique to learn that adjust. The image below shows an example. In the left you have the original image. In the right you have the corrected one. No color correction was done. No luma, saturation gama, gain or other adjusts were made.




That image would be the starting point for editing. You can color correct that, edit gama, gain, saturation, adjust levels etc after that.

Thanks for the great info shared in your post Ungermann. Forums are so nice when people are polite and share their knowledge. Photography and video editing are just one of my hobbies. Im not a specialist. Its not funny to mock people that knows less than you do. You can be sure that I'll never be ironic with you the day you ask in a medicine forum how to solve a health problem.

Maybe now youll be able to understand why I was so excited. You just throwed my images in an image editor and watched some graphics. You probably know that video editing is more than that. You said that the first image was better to edit. If we were talking about two rendered videos I would agree with you. The amazing thing in this method is that in the second video you have the same edit range as the first one. You have the same ammount of details and you have two layers to edit. Its hard to explain because I dont know the correct technical terms, but you have more space to work and you dont lose the info you had in the original video.

You are totally right mark.

As I said, im just an amateur enjoying a hobbie, so forgive me if I use the wrong technical terms.

Let me correct what I said: everytime I say corrected all I want to say is altered. Most of the time I know that im making the video more artificial, but thats because sometimes real life is boring. So yes, the correct term would be altered, although I always correct the images before altering them. And most of the times camcorder videos need to be corrected, becuse they lack blacks, whites etc.

Just an observation. When I said corrected, I was talking about the attempt to correct the problem of the gaps between the lines.

One important thing to remember. You pointed out some problems on the second image. Let me remind everyone that the image is not corrected. Yes, I can see a lot of problems on it, but that would be the starting point to make the adjusts. I would never render a video with such looks. The point is, using this technique you have a nice place to start.

LOL I think we are like the 3 stooges here, thiinking basically the same but arguing because of technical terms.

When I said it was not corrected I was using mark's definition. Yes, the video properties were altered, but there are lots of aspects that need to be corrected in it. Some of them need to be increased and some need to be lessend - thats why I said "not corrected" - simply because the only thing made in it was that "fill effect". I would do a lot of correcting before rendering it.

Amazing video Ungerman! You created an awesome nostalgic feeling in that video! Do you have more to show? Can you please tell me the name of the first song on the video?