Screen grabs from recent project opinions sought....

[MattC]

Ok so some of you saw my lighting test. Well I shot this scene and have been playing with color correction. Obviously I'm going for a (wait for it..... wait for it.......) "film look". Now bear in mind that this scene should be lush looking and have some punch to it (that doesn't mean that I did this well, but if you offer suggestions please do so with that in mind. The earlier part of the short will be shot more drab getting progressively more "beautiful" (think joe versus the volcano)...

Ok have at, what do you think? I'm wondering if the images are too saturated?

http://www.birthofthecool.com/Testing/scene8_1.jpg

http://www.birthofthecool.com/Testing/scene8_2.jpg

http://www.birthofthecool.com/Testing/scene8_3.jpg

http://www.birthofthecool.com/Testing/scene8_4.jpg

http://www.birthofthecool.com/Testing/scene8_5.jpg

http://www.birthofthecool.com/Testing/scene8_6.jpg

Thanks,

Matt

[Barry_S]

Matt--I think it's well lit, but a little flatly graded. Here are a few variations that I graded in Vegas by adding some contrast (with color curves), a little warmth (with the primary color corrector), and some diffussion (composited with second layer at ~20% + gaussian blur). The second set also has some increased saturation. Just some variations to get you thinking about the possibilities.


http://lostpilgrim.com/Images/matt_still1a.jpg


http://lostpilgrim.com/Images/matt_still2a.jpg



http://lostpilgrim.com/Images/matt_still1b.jpg



http://lostpilgrim.com/Images/matt_still2b.jpg

[MattC]

Ok, now I see it. I guess I was a bit torn, to much reading about film looks, me thinks.

I originally started out with images closer to your second set (not out of camera, after doing some post work. I'll post the originals in a second) but whenever I see images here that everyone refers to as "filmic" they seem sort of flat to me, so that's what I was going for, more of a less saturated look. Perhaps a discussion about that would be good as well.

Let me post some grabs of original footage...

[Barry_S]

The "film look" thing is a real rabbit hole--I wouldn't get too hung up on it. Better to just try to find "your" look. Something that suits the style of the film and floats your boat. Your grading above lacks a little of the mystery and "unreality" I like to see in a filmic piece.

[MattC]

Here are uncorrected grabs:

http://www.birthofthecool.com/Testing/scene8_original_1.jpg

http://www.birthofthecool.com/Testing/scene8_original_2.jpg

http://www.birthofthecool.com/Testing/scene8_original_3.jpg

http://www.birthofthecool.com/Testing/scene8_original_4.jpg

http://www.birthofthecool.com/Testing/scene8_original_5.jpg

http://www.birthofthecool.com/Testing/scene8_original_6.jpg

[MattC]

I should mention, I'm doing this in FCP on a Mac and using a calibrated production monitor to gauge results...

M

[Barry_S]

I guess the big question would be--what sort of tone are you trying to set here? Any how can the grading support that emotional effect. BTW, you need to get hooked up with a good makeup artist.

[MattC]

BTW, you need to get hooked up with a good makeup artist.

Yes, I know... But again it sort of works here. He should look a little "off". Not deranged entirely, but he's not well....

[Rick Meyer]

Okay you two-

I obviously have my work cut out for me. I just ordered my DVX yesterday and it should be here from B&H by Thursday or Friday. But, I don't even know what I am looking at there. These grabs are beautiful. Really punchy and pleasing. But, how does that translate into a film look? Hmmm...not 100% sure. Barry S has obviously got some good direction there but getting the gaussian blur involved.

You know what might help me and perhaps yourself, Matt? Would it be possible to post your grabs next to a grab of a film that has a similar "look" that you are going for? Maybe that is going a bit too far, or perhaps is a waste of time because you'd lose a lot in the translation by grabbing a shot from another film, but maybe that would help.

I look at these grabs and think they look fantasic, but not sure what I am comparing to.

But as they stand alone, they are beautiful.

Rick

[MattC]

Thanks Rick,

Myself I'm not to keen on the blur - at least not this much. I did shoot with a Black ProMist 1/2 and felt that gave me a fair bit of diffusion, but I'll try adding more with some Digital Film Tools filters...

The other point that always has me wondering. My girlfriend on a PC just downloaded these and said the looked "black". From her description, I could tell that they appeared far darker than they do on my Mac. Since I assume at least on of you is on a PC I'm happy to know that you are seeing something closer to what I intended.

As far as film look goes - well it's just silly really, but some of us attempt to make our footage look as film like as possible. Now on there are many many different looks in different films, but on this board many seem to think it looks a certain way, so I was trying to incorporate some of that into my coloring.

[J.R. Hudson]

If they look BLACK on your girls PC then her monitor is not calibrated. I played around and do agree with Barry on the FILMLOOK being somewhat of a hole. My initial probelms with these grabs are the reds; the pinks; the oversaturation of the skins pigmentation. I'd start by shcnaging the hue of the skin leaning towards a yellowish color. Also, some of these grabs have some major hotspots; make up for this would work great. Check the forehead for example; there is barely any room for movement on this.

I played with some grabs and came up with:

http://img72.exs.cx/img72/6968/ccorr24yd.jpg


http://img72.exs.cx/img72/7007/coreye2za.jpg

Maybe not the look you are after but I think reducing the red will help. My filmlook is a high contrast crushed black kind of look; thats just me.

I wanted to increase the Brightness/Contrast ratio but could not due to some of the Hot Exposure going on. I am not sure of the XL2; but check the ZEBRAS when shooting; I know my DVX would have been ZEBRA central on the dudes face; it is very hot. Maybe use bounce of a softbox or move the light back? There doesnt seem to be a candlelight vibe going on here. Look how hard the shadows are on the mans neck and collar; not from a candle for sure; maybe a china ball might help? Also, alot of light being spread around the room; using flags or barndoors to shut this out would work better and then the blue light on the wall would really pop whereas now it seems to just kind of compete for attention.

Another thing I'm looking at here is:
The whole scene doesn't look lit the way it should; it's that there's too much light. I assume you are going for a NIGHTIME CANDLELIT scene? I assume the splash on the wall is moonlight?
It is just too much light everywhere. I would seriously consider using a Chiaroscuro approach (The use of light and dark). I would:

1. Get some powder for the mans face; way too hot on him.

2. USe a soft source light to mimick the candlelight. The collar on the man is a hard shadow and its not working.

3. I would flag off the light on the man so it is not speading onto the china cabinet (Hutch?)

4. I would try and get the light to fall off his RIGHT SIDE of face more and create a single source appearance. I know that is he sitting in front of the candles, but it's an illusion we are after here

5. I would try and use one single source on the man in the form of a soft box or chinaball (We have not seen if you are using a reverese on the woman but I would apply the same technique there.

The use of light and dark can be very powerful and create wonderful depth; this grab is using ONE DAYLIGHT balanced floro and look at the depth created with it:

http://img201.exs.cx/img201/7470/jdogg5pv.jpg

[MattC]

Hmmmm...... So I f*cked up huh? Well I'm going to continue editing the other footage that I have and I suppose if I have to, I'll reshoot. It'll be a shame because the performance is really spectacular. The actor did great...

You know it's funny, I've posted this on a few boards and folks either think it look "bad" or "too perfect"

My life sucks....

Matt

[Highway_26]

MattC,

A little off topic, but what lens did you use?

Also, if you like the performance, don't reshoot it. Work with what you got. You may be able to make it look better or make the actor look better, but you'll never be able to get the same thing again. At least I never have.

I'll admit I like John_Hudson's interpretation of the grabs the best so far, but in the end it's up to you. What looks good to you? What are you visually trying to achieve? I don't mean to sound like a guidance counselor giving a pep talk, but you're the artist, you're the filmmaker.

[MattC]

I used the 20X and the 3X with a tiffen black promist 1/2. I like Johns work too, but not for what I'm going for here.

John,

I'm going to send you a link that has the clip and a longer explanation of what the short is about and what I'm trying to do as well as how I lit it. Please take a look at it and email me with your thoughts.

Matt

[J.R. Hudson]

Done!

[BLUESPIDER]

um, I think I like John's look the best. You're lighting is alittle to bright on the actor. It do't bother me because I'm sure you have a reason why it was lit that way. Is it me or the dude had a creepy steve bushemi look to him. I would like to see a clip when your finished with it.

[ArkhamFilms]

I just did some quick tests with FCP & DFT 55mm.

http://www.cjroy.net/images/bleach1.png
Bleach Bypass
http://www.cjroy.net/images/crossprocess1.png
Cross Process

http://www.cjroy.net/images/bleach2.png
Bleach Bypass
http://www.cjroy.net/images/crossprocess2.png
Cross Process

I kinda dig the cross process stuff.

-CJ
www.arkhamfilms.com

[MattC]

I'm using DFT cross process filter on the opening scene!! I also like the bleach bypass, but at this point in the story I want a more saturated look I think. I'm planning on moving from faded to lush.

[ArkhamFilms]

Right on. Keep us posted.

-CJ

[STORYTELLER32]

Ok, first I bring da funny:
Your actor reminds me of an older, skinnier hasn't slept in 4 days Paul Giamatti with more hair. :grin:

Ok, so now I bring da comments and suggestions:
I really liked the composition of the lower angle right justified shot on the guy's face. Nice dramatic feel there. The detail you get on this guys face in that closeup of his eye is extremely crisp and overly detailed. I almost feel like I'm looking at high def video there (camera issue I'd say but keep in mind you need to compensate for it if possible).

I thought the DFT cross process by Arkham was the strongest color grading choice (I say color grading because we go so far beyond simple corrections on this that it's not really accurate to call it a correction)

There's just so much warm tone on your set in everything from the jacket the character is wearing (even though it's gray, it's still a warm gray) to the wood tone of the furniture behind him. The cross process cooled everything off a bit helping the really warm spots pop out giving the pallet some variance. (this is a good thing)

Anywho, the lighting on his face feels a little harsh. You might consider using a diffusion filter over your light's barn doors to soften it a bit. But overall, I don't think your lighting is the issue so much as the level of color depth this camera is capable of. I know we've chatted briefly about this before, but just looking at John Hudson's grab shows the subtle color within color you can get with the DVX that the XL2 doesn't seem to be capable of producing. Color wise it's too simple which is also what reminds me of video and not film. The ultra crisp edges on everything only adds to that. Mind you this is not a slam on you. I'm just disappointed with what the the XL2 is capable of (at least from what I've seen so far from it). I had such high hopes for it. (sniff! :embarasse )

You might want to consider adding a film grain to this footage and see if that breaks up those edges a bit. Here's an idea for a way to go. This was done using the 3 way color corrector, in FCP desaturating a tad and adding a little grain.

http://www.jordanraskin.com/MATTC_corrected.jpg

[J.R. Hudson]

That's a solid post ST32.

In fact; I like your Submitted Grab; adding the grain really gives this a softer feel and adds a definate filmic quailty especially combined with Arkham's cooling down of this image using DFT 55mm and how can you not dig the Cross Processing?

I too am surprised (not disapointed as I was not in the market for a new camera) at the XL2 in comparison to the DVX. There's something amiss with the 24p and 'Cinegamma' (Does the XL2 even have a Cinegamma setting? I am not familiar with the camera) colors seem muted or incapable of the DVX's dynamic range. This is not a dis on the camera as I am not familiar with it and have not had an oppurtunity to 'tweak' with it. Still, I tend to shoot Default F6 with the DVX (Give or take a few tweaks) and am beyond pleased with the results.

MattC - I really want to see you nail this and achieve the look you are after. Part of this problem I think is the camera as well as just knowledge in lighting and in post correction. (I speak for myself here for what its worth) I think if we can nail this down we can all learn something from this.

[STORYTELLER32]

Thanks John! Actually, I didn't use Arkham's DFT grab (I myself don't own DFT although I'd love to get it). I took it from Matt's posted straight from camera untouched grab and only used the 3 way color corrector to mess with the highlights, midtones and shadows. I moved towards yellows on the highlights, boosted the reds slightly in the midtones and increased the blue and green in the shadows. Then I added the film grain and desaturated the whole she-bang.

Good luck with this Matt and please post some clips at some point. I'd love to see what you do with the XL2 as I have seen very little footage from that camera overall.

[ArkhamFilms]

I really like ST32's look a lot. Nicely done.

I should note that the Cross Process was just slapped onto the shot. I think you could avoid the blow outs on his skin, with proper CC like what ST32 had done, then punch the color with the cross processing. Kind of a pre-emptive CC before the color grading.

For American Idle, I had also cranked up the saturation on the CC slider. That seemed to help a lot.

-CJ

[MattC]

Thanks guys. The problem I have with the XL2 and color (and post) is that the camera is too damn tweakable. Honestly, every single aspect of your picture can be changed for each chip - it's overwhelming. Yes it does have cinegamma and cinecolor, but the good folks at Digital Film Tools told me to turn both of those off and make some other adjustments for best results using their software in post - so that's what I did. I can get MUCH nicer images straight from the camera than what you saw here, but I was trying to do what they said for working with their software - perhaps this isn't the way to go? In fact, maybe I'll do a "best from camera" test clip this weekend and post it for you. I'm not trying to defend this camera blindly, and maybe the DVX would be better for my purposes, but to by honest I just don't understand that - I'll have to keep working with this. As far as the 24p part goes, John, I have to respectfully disagree with you there. I don't see ANY difference in motion rendering between the two cameras. Even Barry said they rendered motion identically.

I have probably four or five different DFT filters at work in that color corrected clip, and again, I was going for a certain highly saturated look, so I don't want to do the cross processing here at the end - artistic choice if you will, maybe I'm an idiot. Although that is one of the nice things of working in post - you can make whatever changes you want.

Thanks again,

Matt

[J.R. Hudson]

I can dig the 24p thing; it must simply be the 'Gamma' of the two cameras.

Instead of tweaking; why not go for the purest image possible and then manipluate in post? Now you have me wanting to set up a faux candle scene tonight.

[MattC]

I can dig the 24p thing; it must simply be the 'Gamma' of the two cameras.

Instead of tweaking; why not go for the purest image possible and then manipluate in post? Now you have me wanting to set up a faux candle scene tonight.

Well, see that's what I was trying to do - which is why I didn't use the cinegamma and cinecolor, which I prefer. I just have to learn how to do that. You know what I really think I'm going to do? I'm gonna shoot a piece of footage with various settings and then post all the clips.

Matt

[Policar]

John, I love your CC. I don't 100% love shooting in F6, though, since I've found the DVX's CCDs are darned noisy compared with other cameras (including the XL2) so changing stuff in post often leads to very grainy results.

Nevertheless, I did one shoot where I white balanced "by eye" instead of to a white balance card. I'll NEVER make that mistake again. What a nightmare.

I think the images look good, but the CC shows some posterization and a huge that's just too far from real human skin. John's CC is richer and jumps out at you more.

I like the lighting, though. Your production values seem quite good.

[Policar]

huge=hue. I'm tired, sorry.

[J.R. Hudson]

Hi Policar
I totally agree with you regarding the induced grain results. Me? I love it. I am huge fan of Grain and that whole Super16 vibe; the work of Rodrigo Prieto especially when working with Alejandro Iñárritu. I always shoot -3 Iris knowing in advance I wll be adjusting the levels in post; this always results in this saturated grain and it's kind of a vibe I am embracing right now (funny with others trying to embrace crytal clear HD Vision; I can't even imagine using HD on one of my projects; too crystal).

The following are imagery I am in love with (besides Naomi); I like when BLACK IS BLACK; I like painting with the colors; whether it be oversaturated or desaturated. I Don't like pretty. I don't like M Bay or James Cameron pretty visuals. I like The Godfather with its underexposed, desat crushed level look; I like Se7en with its less than pretty imagery; stark, moody. I like Lost in Translation. Im babbling now.


http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/owlive/img/dec03/grams.watts1223_big.jpg


http://www.21-grams.com/assets/images/stillsPopUp/photo-1.jpg

http://www.21-grams.com/assets/images/stillsPopUp/photo-3.jpg

[STORYTELLER32]

Yes it does have cinegamma and cinecolor, but the good folks at Digital Film Tools told me to turn both of those off and make some other adjustments for best results using their software in post - so that's what I did. I can get MUCH nicer images straight from the camera than what you saw here, but I was trying to do what they said for working with their software - perhaps this isn't the way to go?

OH! Well if that's what you were doing then I understand. Still no matter what, you should do what you can in camera to lessen the sharpness as much as possible. I think that's why you were getting those kinds of "it's too perfect" comments from other people. The best look you'll get will be finding that balance through experimentation (lots of it) knowing when to pull back in camera work with post effects in mind and when to push it to it's limits with post effects in mind. The lesson learned should be not to shoot anything you'll love or need when experimenting.

I think the big problem you're running into now is that you're in love with the scene overall and want to keep it, but you seem to have done things backwards. You really need to settle on a look prior to shooting anything not figure out what look you like in post. This is what happens when you nail a scene with an actor and then find there are production issues that screw it up for you. On the Return of the Kind behind the scenes stuff the actor all talked about the end sequence when they had to be all emotional about Frodo leaving and they had multiple screw ups from Sean Astin forgetting to wear his vest during parts of the coverage to the entire scene being re-shot out of focus. Sucks for the actors. Production wise, it's not as much a strain on Peter Jackson because he wasn't funding it. But for us little guys... Well it hits the pocket hard if we have to re-do stuff and don't own all our own equipment. And even if you do, feeding the actors and crew costs something.

[MattC]

OH! Well if that's what you were doing then I understand. Still no matter what, you should do what you can in camera to lessen the sharpness as much as possible. I think that's why you were getting those kinds of "it's too perfect" comments from other people. The best look you'll get will be finding that balance through experimentation (lots of it) knowing when to pull back in camera work with post effects in mind and when to push it to it's limits with post effects in mind. The lesson learned should be not to shoot anything you'll love or need when experimenting.

I think the big problem you're running into now is that you're in love with the scene overall and want to keep it, but you seem to have done things backwards. You really need to settle on a look prior to shooting anything not figure out what look you like in post.

You got it. I just don't have the experience yet to do it - but I'm getting there... I hope....

Thanks!

Matt

[MattC]

One question regarding sharpness. I did turn it down a bit, but I could still turn it down much more. I was told that if you wanted to project the image (NOT transfer it to film, just project it) that you shouldn't turn the sharpness all the way down, which is what I think I'd have to do to get the look you're talking about. Do you think that's true? The only reason I ask is because I want to learn how to shoot for future festival stuff, nothing major, but we have a local festival here in town that does digital projection, so that was a consideration, even if a bad one.

Matt

[STORYTELLER32]

ahhh.... that's a good question. I only comment on sharpness with regards to the "filmlook" desire. It seems to me that it makes sense to have more sharpness in your settings if you're looking to project SD footage onto a larger screen. SD is really only meant for TV resolution so when you project it large it falls apart. I really don't have experience in this area as the stuff I'm doing is really only meant for DVD output as samples of my writing/directing/post production chops. Someone like the great Barry Green would be the right person to answer this one accurately I think.

PS: I answered your PM just before posting this.

[MattC]

Yeah, see this makes what I'm trying to learn a bit difficult for me, because I can't (or maybe I can) simply judge the results by what I see on my production monitor, dig? It's like when I talk to people about this, they all say that you just have to shoot the right way and trust the outcome, but not having done it or ever really experimented with it, it's really hard for me to do, or even wrap my head around. I mean it even effects color choices, because you're constantly taking into consideration HOW the image is going to "fall apart". That was one of the reasons for choosing the XL2 - the added resolution/sharpness that I thought would be a benefit in these circumstances - but maybe I got it wrong...

Matt

[Shaw]

The way I see it is this:

1) Shoot with a sharpness setting of -5 or similar
2) Sharpen as necessary in post

This will give you the greatest freedom and the ability to sharpen individual scenes differently depending on their needs.

[MattC]

I'm going to be experimenting with this more this weekend. You know, I'm wondering how much of this is the camera and how much is the lens. My partner here does a lot with still photography and we was mentioning how his Canon glass is much sharper than his Nikon glass. I myself don't know too much about that, but he swears that Canon lenses are uber sharp. I assume this could be a factor as well?

[J.R. Hudson]

How far back can you get on these Matt? Specifically, get as far back as poosible and then xoom in to frame. Might be able to create a nice shallow DOF? Just a thought

[MattC]

If I have room, which I didn't really here, I can get GREAT DOF with the 20X. To be honest, I probably wasn't thinking creatively enough on that level. Next short I do, I will definitely write/plan for that ahead of time. I want to get this one as good as I can, but at the same time, for what it is, I don't want to spend a year on it, ya know? This is only my second attempt at capturing something on tape and I figure I need to do about twenty more shorts (each as best as I can) to really learn something.

[J.R. Hudson]

I'm on the same page; I'm thinking the year 2005 is all filmmaking; all education.

[STORYTELLER32]

Matt. I think the XL2's problem is indeed the lens. Just saw what it looks like with the P+S mini-35 and the footage looks great colorwise. http://www.starcentral.ca/

This is a very bad thing for this camera in my view because the whole point to a 24p camera is to avoid that video look and that lens seems to be fighting that bigtime. Are there other lenses one can get for this sucker short of spending ten grand on the mini-35 that would change that?

[icicle22]

As a little add on to this lens thing:

I have an XL2 and also have the 16x manual lens. I shoot almost exclusively with the manual lens and a Century OPtics .7x WA adapter on it. Why you ask?

2 reasons.

1.)The wide end of the 20x and 16x is just not wide enough. I need to shoot in small areas and don't have the time to be "swtitching" lenses on and off.

2.)The add on WA adapter degrades the image ever so slightly. Not in a bad way but in a softening way. Scenes shot through the 16xmanual and WA adapter look much more filmlike than the 20x at the same sharpness settings. IMHO

3)(Bonus reason)Shallow Depth of Field.Yes. That's right I said shallow. How can that be you ask? WA adapters typically give you are very deep DOF. Well my friends check this out if you will. At the widest setting is behaves exactly as you would expect. Everything is in focus.

However zooming in an even modest ammount and it gets shallow very quick. My theory is based on the concept of CCD target area versus Film target area. There was a good diagram on here some time ago explaining how 1/3 CCDS compared to 1/2, 2/3 and 35mm. This was to illustrate the 7x magnification when using 35mm lenses on the XL2. This also illustrated that for each format the ammount of the subject in frame changes. The example had a bride and groom (I think). The 1/3 inch area only saw the faces, the 1/2 saw the bodies too and the 35mm saw the bride and groom and all kinds of stuff around them. They should all have the same DOF at this point but the framing is different.

On the 35mm lens you zoom in more to frame the bodies and the depth of field decreases. Same for the 1/2 inch. But with a 1/3 inch you are already amost too zoomed in. You can't zoom anymore unless you move farther away from the subject. Does this make sense?

So to sum it up, having the .7x on the 16x manual lens actually optically pushes me farther away from my subjects. Therefore I have more room to zoom to "appropriate" framing and get shallower DOF. If I would normally set the lens to focus on someone 6 feet away, now with the adapter I focus on 10ft or so. It doesn't sound like much but in practice it makes a huge difference. I know because it can be a beotch too as the DOF becomes so shallow on even medium shots that I have a hard time being in focus as subjects move around. All in all I am getting more filmlike images.

FWIW.

[MattC]

Interesting... Can you use a matte box with this adapter?

I find the 20X to be a phenomenal piece of glass. If you want to capture super sharp very crisp video, this lens is fantastic. So I used a black pro mist to soften the image. You use the manual and a wide angle adapter to soften it. But aren't 35mm film lenses super sharp since they have to resolve much more? Also, do you ever use the 3X lens or do you just use the 16X and the wide angle adapter? Could you post an example of something done with the 20X and the same thing done with the 16X same camera settings?

Matt

[MattC]

And Storyteller, as I've said here before, most people buying the XL2 are not narrative/aspiring filmmakers, they are professional videographers and they want the sharpest glass they can get.

[icicle22]

Matt,

Over the weekend I will try some examples using both.

I don't own the 3x Canon lens but I have used it. It produces a very nice, clean wide image. The .7x adapter shows a little bit of distortion on the very far left and right edges. By distortion I mean softness/blurriness. Not geometric distortion. I have learned to live with this and work around it. It is only visible on the widest shots.

Anyway the way the 16x manual and .7x work together really does it for me. I miss the OIS on handheld stuff but the image just has a "deeper" look to it.....as in more depth...not DOF but a perception of depth...It's hard to describe.

I'll try to take some shots based on these constants:

The camera will stay in the same position in regard to the subject.
I will try to match the size of the subject in the frame by zooming or pulling out
I will keep the same f-stop for all shots.

Hope it turns out good!

Century makes a MatteBox that works with it but I can't be sure if other ones will.

[MattC]

Excellent - I'm looking forward to seeing the footage!