or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Camcorders › "Color Grading" - I don't get it
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Color Grading" - I don't get it - Page 2

post #31 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ungermann View Post

REDCODE has bit depth to allow for recording without gamma correction.
My only reason to reference RED was anecdotal about the film industries reaction to RAW digital capture compared to the baked in files like ProRes which they where used to. One of the reasons Alexa was and is so popular.
I never meant to compare REDCODE to the type of files we are discussing here.
Quote:
I don't object your choice to preserve shadows and highlights, I do this myself whenever I can, but just don't delude yourself that you get this for free simply because you are shooting "flat".
Shooting video with these kind of systems we are discussing here are very much about experience and being able to make the right choiche in the moment of what settings is the best. It always becomes a compromise in a handicapped system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

You just gave it away - get it right in the camera (manipulated RAW video), and you have the best (compared to manipulating 8-bit, highly compressed video no matter how minimally baked). Look for cameras that have a lot of customizing tools and exposure aids so you have no regrets.

So, the lesson is to work on your camera skills for the best results (so you have no regrets), until we get RAW video out of the camera, when all those computer software tools can come into play with no damage. Or maybe, lightly compressed, 4:2:2 video from the camera might be ok too (Ninja anyone?). Minimize regrets that's the ticket! Now, many cannot obtain the best, so then you can choose your poison. But it is clear what is best.
If one always could get it right in the camera it would be best, but that is not always possible. One also have to calculate in what one wants to do with the material in post and stay on the "safe side" so one are not locked in, and that means staying more on the flat side than on the strong baked in side.

All discussions I have seen among people that use DSLRs and get paid for it is that if they have to ship the footage to a professional color grader, those guys always ask the DP for a flat look and not something baked in the DP thought looked great to him.
Quote:
Oh, and don't shoot sports with a DSLR; no way it can autofocus on fast-moving players or you can use manual focus to follow them either. But you can always pretend your oof clips are art, or just show us the ones you by luck happened to get in focus (short video). Get real; I bet you never shot video at a sports event. It is incredibly challenging to do well, and you cannot correct focus in post, so you have to get it right in the field. Of course, you can obscure oof clips with hazy, strange colors and extra soft video...
(he used a GH3 which has some autofocus capability)

Would have been interesting to know how you would have executed a similar subject when this way of doing it upset you so much..........nearly make you post derogatory remarks like he is some kind of fake pretender.

Now you will be bothered every time you watch a feature movie because you will notice all the artistic in-and-out-of-focus and the focus pulls and all the times the focus puller miss the focus unintentionally. smile.gif


What we are discussing here of the technical side of shooting flat is all about garbage systems which make images out of line-skipping capture from sensors (at least some of them operate like that) and end up with a two mega-pixels image. It is only video capture that use the ridiculousness low resolution of two mega-pixel.
Not even a camera phone use a two mega-pixel sensor.

So it is what it is and we do the best out of undesirable compromises.

Want to know what the difference between a RedOne-MX, a Sony F35 and a 7D looks like on a zone plate? This was posted some years ago so it isn't accurate for Red cameras anymore. Speaks for itself of what kind of quality we are working with.

Click on it for full size.

Edited by coolscan - 10/3/13 at 6:15pm
post #32 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ungermann View Post

Although I am not a big fan of Star Wars, Lucas shot the Episode 2 on 8-bit HDCAM. I don't think that anyone on this forum is going to shoot something grander anytime soon. It is not the equipment.

Yeah.. episode 2 was shot on the HDW-F900R, a really ordinary 80k camera, just like our average camcorder/mirrorless.

Great comparison rolleyes.gifbiggrin.gif

One of the F900 features:

12-bit ADSP
12 bit A/D conversion and advanced digital signal processing ensures excellent tonal reproduction, for the most demanding applications.



And I repeat: 8-bit 4:2:0 is over. We are enthusiasts, we must stop buying expensive crappy cameras. Its time to move on. The technology is here!

And stop comparing home videos with pro videos. They have a budget of millions of dollars and they have a crew with the best guys in business to do special effects and provide the perfect lighting. The real challenge is to make good looking videos without that.
Edited by thedest - 10/3/13 at 7:44pm
post #33 of 71
This is factual program - color-graded.







Check out depth of field:



Two different cameras from the same shot: shallow DOF and some minor grading for one (one might say that it has traditional for Panasonic bluish tint, he-he), deep DOF and no grading for another:





Factual TV is accepting movie look in a big way.
Edited by Ungermann - 10/7/13 at 10:05pm
post #34 of 71
Thread Starter 
This very recent discussion by experienced pro videographers (they make a living from video) sums it up well: flattening in camera and color grading in post with 8-bit video does more harm than good:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?314457-Not-liking-cinestyle
post #35 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

This very recent discussion by experienced pro videographers (they make a living from video) sums it up well: flattening in camera and color grading in post with 8-bit video does more harm than good:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?314457-Not-liking-cinestyle
Great article and awesome blog mentioned in the DVXUser thread: http://www.shutterangle.com/2012/canon-picture-styles-shooting-flat-or-not/ Thanks for the find!
post #36 of 71
More TV shots. Some graded, some "only" shallow-DOF style.







post #37 of 71
Turns out the lack of contrast when using a flat picture style may affect the camera's ability to focus.

Looking into Magic Lantern, you can focus with one pic style and set it to change to a different style, like a flat one, once record button is hit. But I don't think that would be good for exposure as a flat style is vastly different.

There is also "Magic Zoom"/magnified focus box in ML that shows a focus box while recording. I would think that if using manual focus and Magic Zoom while in a flat picture style, that might work out.
post #38 of 71
Thread Starter 
Color-graded EOS M Video: Science Museum



Select 1080p.

Vimeo version for downloading: https://vimeo.com/77085537


Yes, I color-graded in-camera using different WB settings and Picture Styles for the different scenes: outdoors at sunrise, dim museum rooms with contrasty lighting, butterfly rooms lit by sunlight (Neutral and Standard, sunlight and shade temperatures.).

By doing this I changed the coloring, the relationship between mid-lights and highlights and the perceived sharpness and contrast with no loss of resolution from re-compression, no color distortion.

Some focus pulls and pans. Used the 35mm f2.0 IS STM in all indoor rooms and the 18-55mm IS STM lens for the butterflies and outdoors (btw, an f2.8 lens with only a 1" sensor would not cut it inside this museum; just say'in)
post #39 of 71
My take on this is a bit different and it's coming from someone who enjoys the 'documentary', 'you-are-there', 'live' look. So with that said, if those are the qualities you're looking for in your video, I don't see any advantage in color grading post. I just simply don't see it. In fact, I'd say color grading puts you at a distinct disadvantage.

The point of this style of shooting, IMO. is to have an end product that duplicates what you saw as closely as you can. How can you do that in post? The memory is notoriously bad for remembering how that shade of yellow looked or what hue of green existed at that time of day at that location under those weather conditions. The only truly accurate way to achieve this is to nail the proper WB at the time of the shoot. Anything else is nothing more than guesswork and is bound to fail.

To do this you need an accurate monitor, be it an external or onboard. It amazes me how many use their cameras thinking that the color depicted in their VF or LCD is accurate. The problem is calibration. I have seldom seen or used an LCD or VF where the color matched what my eyes saw. How many manufacturers take the time or use the necessary hardware to achieve perfect or near-perfect color accuracy? So having a camera/camcorder whose VF or LCD can be adjusted in terms of color balance is key. Unfortunately very few cameras can do that. Short of that, it would be imperative to know what kind of color error you're particular VF or LCD has. Is it too cool, too warm, does it favor one particular color? At least knowing where the errors are can help you achieve a better white balance at the camera. Of course this all assumes you do a proper WB with the camera to begin with.

This is not to say I don't/can't appreciate the art of color grading...and it is an art, but for the kind of shooting I do, it serves little purpose.
post #40 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

......to have an end product that duplicates what you saw as closely as you can. ......The memory is notoriously bad for remembering how that shade of yellow looked or what hue of green existed at that time of day at that location under those weather conditions. The only truly accurate way to achieve this is to nail the proper WB at the time of the shoot. Anything else is nothing more than guesswork and is bound to fail.......

My small travel camera with 1" sensor will record 20 MB "RAW" photos that I can play with in Lightroom. I can add "effects" with Nik and Topaz plug ins to Lightroom. If I hold still, I can bracket and combine the images with amazing exposure range.

Although difficult to do with my small camera, if I take a picture or video of a bald eagle in a tree top against a bright blue sky, I do want to "duplicates what I saw as closely as I can". When I shot photos and video clips of a narrow cobblestone street in Frieburg, Germany lit with a combination of shop windows and a post sunset sky, there is no "proper WB". I have a memory of an emotional reaction, not a memory of the "green hue." My goal in post is to remind myself of the emotional reaction.

In post I can search for that memory a lot better with photos than videos. My current "creative goal" is to produce personal travel videos that mixe what I can do with the "mood" photos and some action as seen in the video clips.

My first experiment with the technique was a travel video of the Grand Canyon last spring. It worked well enough that I have almost 1400 Vimeo views. It is loaded with flaws, but when I watch it I feel my memory of my personal mood standing at the rim.

For the future I would like to have a video camera that could shoot 30 or 60 RAW photos a second continuously. The size of the clips would be far beyond any processing power and storage capability I have now. But what fun I could have with software that has the features of Lightroom and could handle "raw" video.

Someday there may be common cameras and computers that can do with video what we can now do with photos. We are not there yet, are we?
post #41 of 71
Thread Starter 
"For the future I would like to have a video camera that could shoot 30 or 60 RAW photos a second continuously. The size of the clips would be far beyond any processing power and storage capability I have now. But what fun I could have with software that has the features of Lightroom and could handle "raw" video."

The future is here now: Even the EOS M can do this: 24 1280x720 RAW "photos" per second continuously for at least a few minutes (not just seconds) at a time. And I process them in Lightroom (choosing the WB and whatever else) to get the video "look" I want with no loss. The computer handles this fine.

But it was not fun at all, processing the RAW pictures into a video - very time consuming (lots of steps). What is needed is software to make this less laborious; the hardware can do it right now.
post #42 of 71
Speaking of 'no loss', does anyone know of any editing programs that can edit mov files losslessy? I'm talking about a final output with zero loss in quality.

I've been using Edius Professional for years, and although it can handle mov files, it does not output the finished project without loss.

I would really love to keep the beautiful mov files from my GH3 pristine.
post #43 of 71
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Speaking of 'no loss', does anyone know of any editing programs that can edit mov files losslessy? I'm talking about a final output with zero loss in quality.

I've been using Edius Professional for years, and although it can handle mov files, it does not output the finished project without loss.

I would really love to keep the beautiful mov files from my GH3 pristine.

Yes! TMPENGc Smart Renderer 4. Also allows, besides trimming and merging and ordering, titling, transitions, audio and video fades, audio volume control. Lossless editing with .mov. AVCHD, MP4 (as long as not mixed). I use this for all my videos.
post #44 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague View Post


For the future I would like to have a video camera that could shoot 30 or 60 RAW photos a second continuously.

You can do this NOW with the Nikon V1 or V2. They are really cheap cameras and they shoot 4k RAW pictures @ 30 or 60 fps. You can create small clips of 3 seconds. 4K RAW - 12-bit 4:4:4. Pretty amazing. The fact that you can shoot only small clips makes it even more fun and it helps you to save space and be more creative. You will be forced to shoot videos like you shoot pictures. Best exercise to learn how to make good videos.

And you can edit in any midrange PC, you dont need a really fast one. RAW is pretty easy to handle.

Here you can see two examples:

https://vimeo.com/69594975#at=0

https://vimeo.com/70959751#at=0


4K RAW 12-bits 4:4:4 for as slow as 250 bucks. rolleyes.gif
post #45 of 71
Thanks much Mark, great find. Just to make sure I have the right one, is this it (no mention of mov as an output file)?

http://tmpgenc.pegasys-inc.com/en/product/tmsr4.html
Edited by Ken Ross - 10/18/13 at 1:39pm
post #46 of 71
Thread Starter 
Correct - it puts the .mov in an mp4 package or an .mkv package (no re-compression). It makes .m2ts .ts files; again, that is just the package. You can also mux and demux with the software. This is the only software I have found that does "smart" rendering correctly - no glitches. As I said, all my videos are made using this, and you can download and see the results and see that the underlying codec specs are exactly the same as the originals (that of course is not proof they are the same video, but they are). And because there is no re-compression except at the merge points (that cannot be avoided), the creation of videos from clips is very fast.
post #47 of 71
Thanks Mark. So my one remaining problem is viewing the final project on my plasma. Currently the only way to view the raw .mov files is from the camera via HDMI to the TV. That works well as far as the raw files in the camera are concerned. I've always used the PS3 to play back AVCHD files in the past, but the PS3 doesn't recognize .mov files.

So playing back directly from the camera works well as long as it was recorded in the camera. It seems that even copying a file and placing it back on the chip doesn't work as the camera recognizes it didn't create it and characterizes it as 'unplayable file'. I'm wondering if the only solution is to connect a PC to my plasma. I haven't done this in the past and have tried to avoid it.
post #48 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

....... Even the EOS M can do this: 24 1280x720 RAW "photos" per second continuously for at least a few minutes (not just seconds) at a time. And I process them in Lightroom (choosing the WB and whatever else) to get the video "look" I want with no loss. The computer handles this fine.

But it was not fun at all, processing the RAW pictures into a video - very time consuming (lots of steps). What is needed is software to make this less laborious; the hardware can do it right now.
I can't think of stronger words than "I'm fascinated!".
post #49 of 71
Thread Starter 
And this is the RAW masterpiece:

https://vimeo.com/72310879

One minute of video = 3 hours of processing (me, not so much the computer). Convert RAW to cinema.dng, convert .dng to .tiff (each picture (=24*60)) in Lightroom after color grading. Then into Vegas to make a video from the picture stream.
Edited by markr041 - 10/18/13 at 7:34pm
post #50 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Thanks Mark. So my one remaining problem is viewing the final project on my plasma. Currently the only way to view the raw .mov files is from the camera via HDMI to the TV. That works well as far as the raw files in the camera are concerned. I've always used the PS3 to play back AVCHD files in the past, but the PS3 doesn't recognize .mov files.

So playing back directly from the camera works well as long as it was recorded in the camera. It seems that even copying a file and placing it back on the chip doesn't work as the camera recognizes it didn't create it and characterizes it as 'unplayable file'. I'm wondering if the only solution is to connect a PC to my plasma. I haven't done this in the past and have tried to avoid it.

Ken, you might look at a Western Digital "WD TV Live". It's claim to fame is that it plays "virtually any file type" through HDMI to a TV. I have two. An old one and a new one. The new one supports Vimeo too. The input is any USB device from a SD card reader to a external HDD.

Specs say that the supported file types are, "Video - AVI (Xvid, AVC, MPEG1/2/4), MPG/MPEG, VOB, MKV (h.264, x.264, AVC, MPEG1/2/4, VC-1), TS/TP/M2T (MPEG1/2/4, AVC, VC-1), MP4/MOV (MPEG4, h.264), M2TS, WMV9, FLV (h.264)"

If you want to send me one of your .mov files I can test it for you.

Bill
post #51 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

And this is the RAW masterpiece:

https://vimeo.com/72310879

One minute of video = 3 hours of processing (me, not so much the computer). Convert RAW to cinema.dng, convert .dng to .tiff (each picture (=24*60)) in Lightroom after color grading. Then into Vegas to make a video from the picture stream.

I have to say that I am impressed. If you can do it in a few steps, perhaps we are not far away from a more automated, under the hood method.

But, it seems to me, it might be easier. If I had 24 per second 1280x720 RAW "photos" and they are all .crw (Canon "raw") format I would load them directly to Lightroom and "sync" them for adjustment all at once in a single batch or "collection". Then export as .tiffs to load in my NLE.

In Premier Elements I can set a default photo import display length by frames or fractions of a second. So if I have a 30 fps project, I would set that default so the 24 photos would display for a total of a second.

I'm being forced to learn "stop motion video" to help my (drop dead gorgeous,charming and brilliant) granddaughter with a school project! She is demonstrating to her class how video works by shooting 5 jpgs for each second of Lego figures. Except for processor power, I don't see why 24 tiffs wouldn't work as well as 5 jpgs.

FWIW, Premier Elements can accept RAW photo files. It uses ACR as a invisible engine to make the files viewable and some color grading is possible. I don't have any idea what the limit is on the number of RAW files it can handle on the timeline.

If I didn't want to grade them in Lightroom, I might be able to do it in one step with Premier Elements. I have no idea and probably never will know how Premier Pro would do it.
post #52 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague View Post

Ken, you might look at a Western Digital "WD TV Live". It's claim to fame is that it plays "virtually any file type" through HDMI to a TV. I have two. An old one and a new one. The new one supports Vimeo too. The input is any USB device from a SD card reader to a external HDD.

Specs say that the supported file types are, "Video - AVI (Xvid, AVC, MPEG1/2/4), MPG/MPEG, VOB, MKV (h.264, x.264, AVC, MPEG1/2/4, VC-1), TS/TP/M2T (MPEG1/2/4, AVC, VC-1), MP4/MOV (MPEG4, h.264), M2TS, WMV9, FLV (h.264)"

If you want to send me one of your .mov files I can test it for you.

Bill


Bill, thanks much for that!!!! I wasn't aware of that piece and if it delivers, it would really solve my issues! I'll look into it.
post #53 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague View Post

Ken, you might look at a Western Digital "WD TV Live".
Doesn't it choke on AVCHD Progressive?
post #54 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ungermann View Post

Doesn't it choke on AVCHD Progressive?

I know the PS3 does and it won't even recognize mov.
post #55 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ungermann View Post

Doesn't it choke on AVCHD Progressive?
Mine has not, but I can check it again. Do you have file you want me to test?
post #56 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Bill, thanks much for that!!!! I wasn't aware of that piece and if it delivers, it would really solve my issues! I'll look into it.
Ken sent me a clip via dropbox. It played fine.
post #57 of 71
So I bought the WD TV Live and as Bill said, it does play .mov files beautifully. However, like the PS3, it doesn't play AVCHD files from either my Panasonic GH3 or GX7 smoothly. Playback is very choppy and audio eventually disappears. I guess the more highly compressed nature of these AVCHD files is too great a challenge. I really thought after the .mov file success on the WD I was home free having temporarily forgotten that AVCHD is more compressed.

Has anyone had any success (other than with a computer) playing Panasonic AVCHD files smoothly on their TV? The camera is always an option for playing back raw footage, but as soon as you edit it, you can't put the project back on the chip since the camera will no longer recognize the file.

Always complications. rolleyes.gif
post #58 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Has anyone had any success (other than with a computer) playing Panasonic AVCHD files smoothly on their TV?
BD player. Had Sony 185 (?) before, now using the Sony 390. The Pana BD80 (?) did not play the original clips from the Pana SD600 (big freaking company where video, photo, player departments are inventing their own wheels), but played when I ran the clips through tsMuxer.
post #59 of 71
Yeah, that's always another solution and I've used it in the past (burn to BD). But it would be nice to have the project file on an SD card and just play it from some media player without stutter.

It would even be OK to use the camera as the playback device if it would recognize a file not created by itself or another Panasonic camera. The camera only plays those files created by the camera or its siblings. As I've been comparing the GX7 to the GH3, even that's interesting in how these cameras play back files. Put an SD card with files from the GH3 & GX7 in the GH3, and it will play all the GH3 files first (regardless of the date recorded) and then finally play the GX7 videos. The reverse happens when you insert the card in to the GX7.
post #60 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Yeah, that's always another solution and I've used it in the past (burn to BD). But it would be nice to have the project file on an SD card and just play it from some media player without stutter.
I have an old AVCHD 1.0 Panasonic BD30 with an SD card slot in front. Current models have them too. My newer AVCHD 2.0 Sony has a USB port in front where you can put in a SD card reader or even a USB external HDD.

It's been awhile since I tested various methods of playing "raw" 1080p60" files. I have the two clips you dropboxed. What combination would you like me to try? I think I remember the Sony actually playing a .m2ts file on a DVD data disk.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Camcorders
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Camcorders › "Color Grading" - I don't get it