Erased - feature trailer

the shots on the right look more cinematic. But seems pretty sharp. Not a problem easily fixed. the presets in magic bullet are not for everybody, and are way too general. I only recommend them to beginners. to soften the edges slightly simply de-artifact in magis bullet. Yes white walls do make an image appear bland. So what? stick to the look you are going for. i personally would use colorista as opposed to magic bullet for coloring. it has the same feature set as a lustre or da-vinci (except for the secondaries relighting). use levels to find the white in your white walls before masking or vignetting them and pushing them to a warmer tone. push your shadows to a cooler tone and your highs warmer. Remember our eyes see backgrounds darker and foregrounds warmer thats we get confused when we see a picture with white skies, even though that is reality. The look of a film is subjective, so you really dont need to color correct anything. Due to the 24p your film will still appear filmic to the general audience I can assure you of that.
Because of current Digital intermediate processes even films acquired in 35mm and expensive prime lenses look flat and sharp like video After its degrained for vfx. A lot of background atmosphere is added in post to enhance cinematography. I am in transfer houses all the time, they always complain about the limitations of digital scanners.

All this is besides the point, all I am saying is, don't kill yourself trying to color your film. stick to what works best for you. If your distribution company demands a more filmic look, there are many, many post houses in los angeles that might do a favor for a first time filmmaker in return for future business and credits. Don't be afraid to call, plead and beg as many of them as you can, one of them will eventually say yes.

fixing a 180 degree cross is a simple as flipping the image in shake.
always remember in the digital realm all things are nearly possible.

Its my opinion and mine only, to always make your HD movie look really cool and original. I believe you should not worry about trying to make it look like film. you only end up reducing the resolution you initially spent your hard earned money on the HVX to get.

remember you have achieved what many people have not, you have made A full length feature in your own voice. I always say the technical advice giving here on this forum is really good. sometimes the artistic views are great too. like cutting your trailer, choose a thematic pace and stick to it. you should always cut at least five different trailers, at various durations, and at different tempos.

you seem like a really cool guy hope to work with you in the future.
good luck
 
Last edited:
obin said:
I wish I had shot this. it would look sooo good, right now it looks like flat video, even though the actors - story - shots - sound bed- music all feel like a "film" it looks like video 100%

just think if that thing looked like Dangerous Grounds, it would really take it up a notch....www.mobijokes.tv if you have not seen Dangerous Grounds. and NO I am not telling you that it sucks, I just don't like the way it looks at all.

NEVER EVER EVER use white walls in a film, looks like user gen video garbage.
Click to expand...


Your post should be deleted for shameless self promotion of your own product... which still needs work.

On subject--

I agree that youv'e done something that most people here, including myself, have yet to do. I like the sharp look, I wouldn't do any kind of gaussian blur or anything like that. Other than that, I gots nothing else to say that hasn't already been said.

Your next project will probably r0ck six ways. Good luck with distribution.
 
Last edited:
Danny - It would be a pleasure to work with you and other people on this forum. I'm starting venture out to do more projects, big and small to find people I can collaborate with more in the future. I like coming here and have learned a lot since doing so (a hell of a lot more than in film school). I wish I had more time than I do to shoot movies and participate here.

All I want to do is make this the best it can be. I'm trying to go the festival route. I figure if all you here see a problem with the movie, then so will the screeners who'll decide if my movie will be in their festival or not. That means I need to make it acceptable to the majority and still find a way to have it look the way I want it to. If that requires more color correction, then so be it.

I tried the MB Deartifact filter and I honestly don't notice a difference. I used the 4:2:2 option since I shot with an HVX. I don't notice anything during playback in FCP directly or if I output to a QT movie and playback at 100% window size. I do notice a difference if I use LS Edge Noise Soften. I thought the default was too soft, so I lowered the black diffusion from 3.5 to 2. I can see a very subtle difference. Does that sound like what I should be using?

I already tried flipping the 180 image after the issue was brought up before and it just looks funny, especially after the wide shot that shows their relation to each other and the door. With the rest of the action it's not possible to fix the 180 with a flip.

Kholi - Thanks! I only hope to get better with every production.
 
did not want to be rude at all...just ticked me off when I saw your poster and trailer and was "expecting" a look feel that you did not get from the film, that IMHO it needed as the content looks/feels good. sorry if anyone took it as shamless promotion not meant that way at all.
 
Softening can mean so many things - in this case it should not mean unfocus or losing resolution - but the right type of softening will add the organic feel to video that is easily missing and IMHO cheapens the look of what would normally look much better

if you want to go deep into color correction check out www.ericohman.se/ohmangrade

I have purchased it and love the techniques - he talks a lot about soft light transfer mode with gaussian blur - it does not mean losing resolution - but it softens the video edge - makes colors smooth over especially on the edges and adds a much more organic (human) feel)
 
Obin, the proper way would have been to say that, not that you could have done better. I know there's people out there who are "better" than me.... I don't need to be reminded of it so bluntly. There's a proper method to constructive criticism, which some of are here for, and you need to learn how.
 
Smelni, I think I know what you mean. I just need a good description of what a soft light transfer is. I suspect it mean to superimpose a lay of the same clip on itself that has the color removed and has been softened and maybe something done with the highlights? Something like that?
 
look up transfer modes - there are lots of types - soft light is just one - and if you blur it and then set an opacity of 30-50 percent on top of the original footage you will see a dramatic and beautiful softening and recontrasting
 
I know. I was so ticked when I looked at your work as I was expecting a film "look" I guess I should have thought before I spoke. again, sorry.
 
We live in a digital era that is slowly converting from film to video. Why does everything need to look like film? Is film more accurate than video? No. It's just different.

There's nothing wrong with video. Done right, video can look very good, as good or some think even better than film. Just because it's sharper, does that mean it's worse? No, it's different.

Why does everyone assume that everyone else is trying to make their movies more like film? Personally, it doesn't matter that much to me. I'm trying to tell a story and present the best quality I know how and I'm learning along the way. If the picture looks outstanding, but isn't exactly like film, I'm still happy. I would rather have a more cinematic feel than be like film because there's plenty of films shot on film that don't feel cinematic. If the story is good, the acting is good, and you are entertained and/or I made you think, then I've accomplished what I set out to do... film-look or no film-look.
 
Come on now - should cinematic films look like a newscast or a soap opera - no - and the biggest thing that makes them look like that are connected to video - the video edge - the harsh contrast on edges and so on.\

I think that if a color corrector took your film and made it more organic (film like, cinematic etc) you wouldnt be saying this - its not so much making it look like film as just making it look more organic and less digitial.
 
I differentiate "film-look" and "cinematic". To me cinematic is not just in the way it looks as far as color, lighting, etc, but also in the way shots are composed. I want a more cinematic feel.

Making it look like film to me also means trying to add the film grain quality, which is not necessarily something I would want. I understand not having harsh contrast and edges could look better, but to me that's not just because it's film and that's not the only characteristic of film. Sometimes I think film can be too soft.

I've never once said I want my movie to look more like film, but I have said I want it to be more cinematic.
 
I tried the Softlight transfer mode and even combining it with other transfer/composite mode options such as Screen. I didn't really like the results, but I could have been doing it wrong.

It seems to me the option that shows me the best results for my film are the Magic Bullet Look Suite filters. So if I am going to apply a filter such as the Magic Bullet Look Suite with customized settings and Magic Bullet LS Edge Noise Soften what is the best order and best way to apply them? Does Edge Noise Soften need to be the very first filter on each clip, which would take a long time to apply? Should I nest my sequence and apply the two filters to everything all at once, making it so I can't change my Look Suite settings per individual clip? Or should I apply the Look Suite filter to each clip individually and make changes to settings as needed?
 
smelni said:
did you work with the opacity of the transfer mode
Click to expand...

I tried various opacity values, mostly between 30 and 50, but I did try the entire range. I also tried various saturation values. It either looked no different, too much color, or not enough color. It had an unrealistic look to it.

The order on the timelines was:

Softlight
Screen
Original (w/neutral color correction)

I did try it without the Screen layer as well. I also tried different filters on the various layers to see what kind of difference it would make, including Gaussian Blur as you recommended.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what this is supposed to do. Is it supposed to give me a different look or is it just to remove the harsh edges of the video? Or is it a combination of both?
 
you need to do the following

duplicate the original layer - - apply a gaussian blur of 1.5 to it - then do a transfer mode of soft light on top of the untouched layer. then make the opacity of the soft light layer 35 percent

so from top down

original layer duplicated (with gaussian blur)
transfer of softlight (with opacity of 35)
original layer

after you may need to apply a birghten over the top of the whole thing
 
flmmkr said:
We live in a digital era that is slowly converting from film to video. Why does everything need to look like film? Is film more accurate than video? No. It's just different.

There's nothing wrong with video. Done right, video can look very good, as good or some think even better than film. Just because it's sharper, does that mean it's worse? No, it's different.

Why does everyone assume that everyone else is trying to make their movies more like film? Personally, it doesn't matter that much to me. I'm trying to tell a story and present the best quality I know how and I'm learning along the way. If the picture looks outstanding, but isn't exactly like film, I'm still happy. I would rather have a more cinematic feel than be like film because there's plenty of films shot on film that don't feel cinematic. If the story is good, the acting is good, and you are entertained and/or I made you think, then I've accomplished what I set out to do... film-look or no film-look.
Click to expand...


Yes to above BUT, if your shots look bad, and your wideangle in the face handled, along with no cine lights setup, and white walls all captured on a 1/3 inch ccd then YES film looks far far better, and your product is suffering from "video"


BTW be VERY carefull with the use of transfer modes, it could end up looking like a cheap post fix that wedding shooters use. BTDT
 
smelni said:
you need to do the following

duplicate the original layer - - apply a gaussian blur of 1.5 to it - then do a transfer mode of soft light on top of the untouched layer. then make the opacity of the soft light layer 35 percent

so from top down

original layer duplicated (with gaussian blur)
transfer of softlight (with opacity of 35)
original layer

after you may need to apply a birghten over the top of the whole thing
Click to expand...

I'm confused because maybe I still don't understand how transfer modes work. I thought if you put a clip on top of another in the timeline, unless that top layer has an opacity less than 100 you will see only that top layer. But you are telling me to set the opacity of the middle layer to 35. So that will show through to the top layer? I'm not at home where I can try this so I'm asking for clarification ahead of time. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top