Your opinion - Color grade IN camera or POST

SPZ said:
Completely off topic- or maybe not :) :Any good suggestions on a practical color correction tutorial book for FCP? Something that can really help improving CC skills? I do my own C.C, and while I can get interesting results, it never looks close to something like the folks at Motivity Pictures are achieving.(regular posters at the DVinfo site)
Click to expand...

Here you go: Advanced Color Correction and Effects in Final Cut Pro 5 (Apple Pro Training)

http://www.amazon.com/Apple-Pro-Tra...=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/102-7387445-3975364?ie=UTF8
 
DavidBeier said:
Back in the DVX100 days...
Click to expand...
Hey now! I just bought my dvx (albeit, it is a dvx100b) a little over 2 months ago and I still owe a hefty 3k to my loan! Those 'days' better NOT be gone yet!!
 
I agree with getting colour right on set, especially where colour balence is involved as that can get very complicated in post due to highlight's, shadows and midtones react differently to colour temperature.

But I definately don't want to compromise my whites or blacks if at all possible at the shooting stage, each rolling off to black and white at 0 and 254 if the worst case scenario where I'd want to do the most contrast grading. That way I could lose the blacks and whites how and when I wanted to in post.
 
thekyleman71 said:
Hey now! I just bought my dvx (albeit, it is a dvx100b) a little over 2 months ago and I still owe a hefty 3k to my loan! Those 'days' better NOT be gone yet!!
Click to expand...

Hey, I love the DVX as much of the next guy but the HVX is really a different experience shooting wise. For one thing, there's a lot more you have to pay attention to when you've got a 1080p or even 720p image. There's a lot more detail there and it's much bigger so you have to really finess your settings. Things like focus and noise are MUCH more noticible with such a big image so it really requires a lot more precision when shooting. On the other side of the spectrum, CC is much easier. 4:2:2 lets you push an image much father than you previously could. While I like to get it right in camera, I'm much more comfortible these days with shooting clean for a scene I might want to experiment with in post than in the DVX days when I knew that there was much more of a limit with what I could do with it in post. It's just a different experience.
 
If you have the time to achieve the image you want on set, why not?
If you don't have the time on set and have the time and money in post to fix it, you can do just about anything..
WYSIWYG with a pro monitor..

Post has come far these days, and so have the cameras.. So it's all about time, money, and personal pref.

I myself like to get to set and have a color picture in my head, then try and make it happen as best I can..
 
Justin Marx said:
If you have the time to achieve the image you want on set, why not?
If you don't have the time on set and have the time and money in post to fix it, you can do just about anything..
WYSIWYG with a pro monitor..

Post has come far these days, and so have the cameras.. So it's all about time, money, and personal pref.

I myself like to get to set and have a color picture in my head, then try and make it happen as best I can..
Click to expand...

With DVCProHD you can do a lot in post. With HDV I find it harder. I remember a friend of mine was trying to do some CC on some footage shot on the HD100. One shot didn't have anything wrong with it technically but just looked to bland. Another shot had the white balance slighly off. I tried messing with both of them using Combustion 4.0, a pretty damn fine CC tool (some consider one of the best around) and I simply couldn't get the type of image I wanted because the data just wasn't there to start with. I'd get the background looking decent at the expense of the skin tones and vice versa. Some times the difference between 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 is all the difference in the world.
 
Very interesting discussion. I am new to the HVX. I have a script I am working towards recording next year and there is a great deal of darker interior and night scenes. Coupled with the desire to use a 35mm adapter, I am in for some serious pre-production HVX testing later this year to try and yield the best and most acceptable results from the knowledge base within the production crew. The information shared here is amazing and I am grateful to be amongst such dedicated and interested HVX users.

The debate of get it right in camera or get it right in post is intriguing, with regards to the low light issues discussed in the forum many times before. I am still not sold on either method, and I have not yet conducted any HVX tests to distill my own findings. Whilst noise in low light is an issue, it is said to also be controllable to some extent by adjusting down the MP. On the other hand, CC can achieve very good day for night, when footage lit correctly on set with CC in mind, and in the hands of the right colorist in post.

PaPa shared his impressive images displaying in camera control. Cygnet74 shared his impressive 2min CC of the recorded flat image to resemble the in camera result of Papa's. For me, this is a good study to show both sides of the story, whilst not complete. Papa's in camera grade exposed the 1/3 CCD HD camera noise issue, however, it may be possible to reduce the noise down, by reducing the value of the MP, amongst other variables controllable in the HVX. On the other side, Cygnet74's grade does not have substantial noise in the image, however, the lighting and other production choices made on set may affect a colorists ability to get to the desired CC.

Yes, many variables, I must begin to test in due course. Any feedback and opinions on HVX recording darker interiors and night sets would be appreciated. My intention is to shoot 1080p24.

Here are close ups of the Papa's original and Cygnets74's CC'ed duck image to highlight the noise and controlled noise, respectively.

Original


CC


Difference


End novel.... :D
 
CC or grading in post is something you do on material shot with a color, 'feel' and lightplan in advance. As a director of photography you start creating an image that is close to the image you want. In the studio grading CC stage, you -the grading specialist- ' finetune ' that image to perfectionism, and you solve problems....

During the shoot, know the possibilities of the CC grading (in combination with technical video issues like HDV or 4:2:2) and you present an image that is close by and ready to go. As reference you use a calibrated monitor during the shoot, if possible.

Realize that for CC grading you need a high-end reference-grade monitor, high-end software and a viewing room with ideal circumstances to evaluate the material. Mostly you can not achieve that during the shoot, so you just try to create an image with reference to the image you want and shot during the process before.

The shotlist dictates the scene list that is the guide during the shooting process and you programme the camera in advance. It saves time during the shoot, and it creates peace for the crew and cast. Don't spent time to finetune on the set, just look at the lights.
 
PaPa said:
k, here is the example

This was done in camera, Crushed master ped, i think around - 11, colorGamma down to -5 and color temp to +6
Click to expand...

Interesting tests, and results. I assume that you ment Chroma Level -5 and not colorgamma, correct?

Anyway, I'm all infavor of getting your image as close as possible to the final image in camera. Then using the CC to sweeten / fine tune it. To often I think we (I've done it too) rely on the computer to fix the problems instead of putting the time in before hand to really figure out what we want, and then solve the "problems" before they happen.
 
Reading my posting it looks like I am in favor of CC in camera, actually I am not. I think that -seeing some examples here- I never go that far correcting in camera or stimulate to do so. That kind of major corrections are better done in the studio with an overall view with all the scenes and all the shots.

Moreover I think you need to level and to light the scene and adjust the settings in cam for that, and with the end image in mind. An end image you create in the studio during CC/grading stage. You need to have 'room' or unforced colors and signal to do so.
 
xray, good feedback, thanks. We intend to have an LH-1700 monitor during production and post. Post in 10bit 1080p24 CineForm ProspectHD edit/DI process in Premiere Pro 2 using an AJA Xena card. We have DV Rack and intend to record where possible to a laptop, which has a display of 1920x1200, so 1080p pixel for pixel can be displayed in full screen mode. Granted the color space is not YUV, but calibrated RGB on the laptop. The difference will be, it is the compressed DVCProHD signal being monitored, it should give a very good representation of the quality of the image recorded (looking for noise/crawling), where as our HVX Component HD signal being fed to an LH-1700 will represent uncompressed analogue HD, pre-DVCProHD compression. Because we intend to test for low light interior and exterior recording, it will be interesting to see the results, before and after DVCProHD encoding.

We do not have an LH-1700 now, nor alternative HD monitor, so I can not comment on any observation. I am also yet to do tests with the HVX in low light. The Brevis is not far away, so we can start exploring in a few weeks.

Ryan, I will definitely be trying to achieve desired results in camera, if possible.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top