Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
being new to it, I would recommend learning how to accomplish a look you like, but without using presets. maybe start by attempting to mimic a preset to learn how it's done. that should reveal a wealth of possibilities.
Cinematography laws by Macgregor
- Thread starter macgregor
- Start date
being new to it, I would recommend learning how to accomplish a look you like, but without using presets. maybe start by attempting to mimic a preset to learn how it's done. that should reveal a wealth of possibilities.
bwahahahahah!
:grin:
Only Mac would have the balls to post Mac's Laws (and the knowledge and reel to back it up) but that's why I/we love him.
:love4:
And yes they are alll good points.
One film I just watched though that looked like MB LOOKS shot on a 7D with blow outs - ROCKNROLLA.
Along the lines of what Zac said, look for some basic color grading tutorials online. There's actually a few good ones on the Magic Bullet Site.
Look at the Colorista Tutorial and that will give you an idea of three way color grading. Ken Stone has a good intro to the three way color grader for FCP.
Try to mimic the presets or stills from Movies you like. It comes down to a few basics though, especially for getting a film look..
MB Mojito is pretty fun and not as heavy as LOOKS, you can subtly shift faces warm and backgrounds cool and vice versa. A fast, easy to use subtle tool that adds a good bit of polish.
Final newbie suggestion - make sure you understand the basics of Primary Color Grading before you go all nuts with Secondary Grading.
Primary grading is just making sure your levels are right and things match shot to shot. This will make whatever you do next quicker and better. If you lay LOOKS over your shots for example, then you will have to tweak LOOKS less shot to shot in the same scene for example. Learning the basics of Primary will help you push the image more in Secondary grading (pushing the colors and even relighting in a more artistic, less correctional way).
:grin:
Only Mac would have the balls to post Mac's Laws (and the knowledge and reel to back it up) but that's why I/we love him.
:love4:
And yes they are alll good points.
One film I just watched though that looked like MB LOOKS shot on a 7D with blow outs - ROCKNROLLA.
Along the lines of what Zac said, look for some basic color grading tutorials online. There's actually a few good ones on the Magic Bullet Site.
Look at the Colorista Tutorial and that will give you an idea of three way color grading. Ken Stone has a good intro to the three way color grader for FCP.
Try to mimic the presets or stills from Movies you like. It comes down to a few basics though, especially for getting a film look..
MB Mojito is pretty fun and not as heavy as LOOKS, you can subtly shift faces warm and backgrounds cool and vice versa. A fast, easy to use subtle tool that adds a good bit of polish.
Final newbie suggestion - make sure you understand the basics of Primary Color Grading before you go all nuts with Secondary Grading.
Primary grading is just making sure your levels are right and things match shot to shot. This will make whatever you do next quicker and better. If you lay LOOKS over your shots for example, then you will have to tweak LOOKS less shot to shot in the same scene for example. Learning the basics of Primary will help you push the image more in Secondary grading (pushing the colors and even relighting in a more artistic, less correctional way).
macgregor
Veteran
bwahahahahah!
:grin:
And yes they are alll good points.
One film I just watched though that looked like MB LOOKS shot on a 7D with blow outs - ROCKNROLLA.
Maybe that´s because it was shot with the arri D20, that doesn´t handle highlights really well and the colormetry is somehow... plastic.
The reason I thought 7D is that a lot of 7D stuff seems to have a gold tint to it (attractive but distinctive).
Isn't video noise the new "grain"? 
Actually I think compression noise is the new grain.
I agree with your post. Although some things could be used for artists reasons but leading to my next comment regarding magic bullet like effects...
The key word here for anyone using magic bullet etc is "subtlety". If it's obvious, then you've used to much of it. (At least for 98% of uses).
And I could not agree more with your last point. I mentioned this in another thread and I can't remember the name of the movie, but it was filmed so shallow that you NEVER saw the background in focus.
Also I think you should add that people need to revisit the effect of lens choice. Just cause you have a zoom on the cam doesn't mean you should shoot from 2 feet away (perspective distortion) nor from across the field just because you don't want to get your shoes dirty (compression of the background to foreground).
Not only should the pretty actress have more than her nose in focus, her nose shouldn't look as long as her arm. Unless, of course, that is the intended effect.
Actually I think compression noise is the new grain.
I agree with your post. Although some things could be used for artists reasons but leading to my next comment regarding magic bullet like effects...
The key word here for anyone using magic bullet etc is "subtlety". If it's obvious, then you've used to much of it. (At least for 98% of uses).
And I could not agree more with your last point. I mentioned this in another thread and I can't remember the name of the movie, but it was filmed so shallow that you NEVER saw the background in focus.
Also I think you should add that people need to revisit the effect of lens choice. Just cause you have a zoom on the cam doesn't mean you should shoot from 2 feet away (perspective distortion) nor from across the field just because you don't want to get your shoes dirty (compression of the background to foreground).
Not only should the pretty actress have more than her nose in focus, her nose shouldn't look as long as her arm. Unless, of course, that is the intended effect.
Last edited:
The real problem with Magic Bullet Looks is all the presets that come with it are super extreme examples designed more to show off the software. Using those presets as starting points can be a challenge.
I really wish someone would put together a small collection of 10 or so MB presets that were designed to be actually used on real footage. No tint everything blue and crush everything within an inch of it's life. But more realistic looks.
Lately I've mostly been using it starting with the blank preset, adding in some minor exposure/lift/gamma/gain and some film grain. And I've been really happy with the results. I'd also highly recommend (if using it in After Effects) that you add it to an adjustment layer above the footage, and then lower that layer's opacity.
MBL isn't evil. The presets that come with it are just not so great.
I really wish someone would put together a small collection of 10 or so MB presets that were designed to be actually used on real footage. No tint everything blue and crush everything within an inch of it's life. But more realistic looks.
Lately I've mostly been using it starting with the blank preset, adding in some minor exposure/lift/gamma/gain and some film grain. And I've been really happy with the results. I'd also highly recommend (if using it in After Effects) that you add it to an adjustment layer above the footage, and then lower that layer's opacity.
MBL isn't evil. The presets that come with it are just not so great.
On defense of the choice to blow out highlights on Dexter, the content is revolting.
Maybe it is done to reminds us that this is not life as it should be, even when he begins
to feel like a guy we'd trust our kids with, there is always something very wrong.
Plus, it is Miami.
My fav show right now so I apologize for overdoing the grabs. It was fun to see how
prominent this is.
The real Dexter (some graphic content):
http://www.daemonstv.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/dexter_208_0567.jpg
http://irishgothichorrorjournal.homestead.com/dexter.jpg
Maybe it is done to reminds us that this is not life as it should be, even when he begins
to feel like a guy we'd trust our kids with, there is always something very wrong.
Plus, it is Miami.
My fav show right now so I apologize for overdoing the grabs. It was fun to see how
prominent this is.
The real Dexter (some graphic content):
http://www.daemonstv.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/dexter_208_0567.jpg
http://irishgothichorrorjournal.homestead.com/dexter.jpg
Last edited:
John Brawley
Well-known member
John Brawley
Well-known member
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Are there some examples of this, because Canon 'still' digitals seemed to always give a 'yellowish' cast 'raw' image. Nikon sort of 'Blue/Purple'... For me the Fujifilm S1,2,3,5 seemed to have the most 'natural' straight out of the camera look... but then they've vacated the DSLR world, and seem to be applying their sensor to the consumer camera world...
John Brawley
Well-known member
Nothing online, but we were using a 7D as a trick camera on a TV show shooting with 2 x Panasonic 3000's shooting pretty much factory default. They dropped it after the second episode because they couldn't get them to grade anywhere near the dynamic range of the 3000's. 3 cameras shooting and the canon wasn't even close.
For a while they talked about trying to *degrade* the 3000's to make them match.
Luckily sanity prevailed.
The temporal mismatch was an extra layer of ugliness. (we shoot 25 FPS here)
All digital cameras tend to have more shadow detail than headroom, and anyone trying to extract the maximum dynamic range will simply position the exposure point lower in order to protect the highlights. Overall a flatter and underexposed image, but done so knowing that you can generally grade it all back later for a better result. Overall dynamic range still the same, just *remapped*.
That is, trade some shadow reach for highlights.
I think it's a bit much to say the F35 is miles from a D21 and my own experience is that the 7D's struggle to even match a regular HD panasonic or RED, irrespective of ones methodology in exposure.
We also haven't even credited it as being intentional, and that some people might LIKE that look. Certainly a lot of Guy's other films (lock stock etc) have a similar look and are film originated.
jb
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
John, you are slight incorrect as you do stretch the dynamic range but what you are remapping are the bits. Namely you can't generate the new bits to handle the extra dynamic range out of nothing, you have to take them from somewhere - color richness.
chrismagicc
Well-known member
i don't want to change the subject...
the film grain looks like a good tool in mb, but whats a good setting? it seems as though its pretty present at around 5%? what are your settings?
the film grain looks like a good tool in mb, but whats a good setting? it seems as though its pretty present at around 5%? what are your settings?
macgregor
Veteran
John, there you go, you are comparing a panasonic hpx3000 with a super dynamic range to a 7D. That panasonic model is probably superior than Red in dyanmic range too.
Not saying that the 7D is good or bad, i´m just saying that the Panasonic is a great! ;D
"anyone trying to extract the maximum dynamic range will simply position the exposure point lower in order to protect the highlights" exaclty, something that most red and arri shooters don´t do, judging by the amount of works I see everyday with clipped highlights.
Not saying that the 7D is good or bad, i´m just saying that the Panasonic is a great! ;D
"anyone trying to extract the maximum dynamic range will simply position the exposure point lower in order to protect the highlights" exaclty, something that most red and arri shooters don´t do, judging by the amount of works I see everyday with clipped highlights.
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
macgregor, your hangup on the "clipped highlights" is a bit strange as the reason why movies look so different (so much more expensive) then soap operas is because of just that -- much more bold lighting and higher contrast thus there is almost a requirement to clip highlights to achieve that.