Flat or not flat? That is the question...

A

AndrewTaran

Active member
My FS100 will be here next week, so I started to look for PPs. :grin:

Some people say that codec holds pretty good at grading, so use as flat PP as possible to get the best results. Some say that look should be "baked" inside the camera and minimal grading should be added in post. Well, I'm an aspiring colorist :cheesy: and for sure I'd be doing a lot of grading anyways, so for me it's critical to know how to get the best results from codec. I don't have budget for an external 422 recorder(and some tests I've seen showed that it doesn't make big difference).

So, flat or not flat? What is your opinion?
 
baked

if you want a contrasy tonal look like the PBloom boxing vid you can go, IMO semi flat, but watch the smooth graduations fall apart

personally id avoid very flat

S
 
Andrew;

I would say..
what are subjects are you shooting?
and what do you want it to look like?
and how confident are you that your look will be what works best by the end of post?

Some notes;
i do see a significant diffrence with an external recorder when pulling secondaries
i avoid the flat profiles, prefering to use the full range of data avb
I'm also in Vancouver, and am a colorist first and foremost, if you want to stop sometime i can A/B the FS100 with just about every profile on the planet, and RedMX / F3@Slog / Alexa / Epic / C300 / 5& 7D / log scan film etc etc.... My suite is on Granville Island... just gotta workaround my clients sched's when doing a test

d
 
Also, shooting TOOO flat is wasting the meagre, weedy 8 bits per channel that we're given, so if your brightest whites aren't pinned to the ceiling, and the blackest blacks hovering millimeters above the carpet, you're going to have to pull your 8 bits apart - the flatter it is/looks, the more you're going to pull it from the middle 5-6 bits (this isn't exactly what I mean, I'm just doing a sketch).

The Waveform Monitor Is Your Friend. Look at your flat images - is the base level up at IRE25? Are the highest highs somewhere around IRE80? Hmmmm. Yes, I've been there. :beer:

So, unlike DSLR footage, where monster noise lurked in the shadows, you can actually pull quite a bit up from the darks. Horrible things can happen on blown highlights, so it comes down to a bit of work on your histogram with something like G-Log. Pin the highlights, then alter your black level (scene by scene or setup by setup) so your histogram is 'well filled' and there are no gaps and no cliffs top and bottom. Blacks can go from -3 to +7.

Also - my mantra for the month: watch for 109s. Everything over 100IRE is ignored on output, so pull your 109 superwhites in. Use the extra dynamic range, but don't waste it on the last leg of the journey.
 
MattDavis said:
my mantra for the month: watch for 109s. Everything over 100IRE is ignored on output, so pull your 109 superwhites in. Use the extra dynamic range, but don't waste it on the last leg of the journey.
Click to expand...

Hey Matt;

i was wondering about the "everything over 100 is ignored" comment.. i'm thinking you are talking about an output colortimed master, not camera orignals?

I totaly agree that anything under 0 or over 100 ire (64 / 940) is clipped on broadcast.. but if one is gradeing then keeping the full range intact from the camera orignal would not a be problem... then to reduce, clip, or roll off the peaks is nothing more than salt & pepper to taste ?

I can see how keeping camera orignals below 100 is needed for delivering straight to air, but that's not a issue for all projects?

d
 
You can't go that flat on a FS100, stick with Cinematone1 and black gamma high +7, its the best look and range you can get straight out of camera. I also recommend definitely sticking to broadcast safe unless you can guarantee that you are doing post and will not clip superwhites or somehow know for sure the editor will not clip superwhites.
 
ive been playing with glogA from frank and i kind of like the image im getting from the camera but in some situation you have to do way too much grading to the avchd file. If it was a 422 file, it would be very nice and work very well. I prefer to use franks glencolor 2.0 profile with the red level turned down to 0 and i dont use any WB shift. it creates a great out of camera image and i still do a small amount of correction and grading so its still fun :)
 
Word to the wise - going positive black (+7) if you don't need to (check histogram) is still a little wasteful of our mere 8 bits per channel. There comes a point where one is just 'making grey the new black'. :)
 
MattDavis said:
Word to the wise - going positive black (+7) if you don't need to (check histogram) is still a little wasteful of our mere 8 bits per channel. There comes a point where one is just 'making grey the new black'. :)
Click to expand...

IMHO a +ve black level can be fine under the right circumstance especially with the CineTone2 curve as the curve is soooo pulled down at the blacks making it overly contrasty. With a lifted black level the CT2 curve is fine for very bright hard lit scenes with good roll off at the top end. Just don't expect to claim any detail back at the lower end cuz it's gone. I had an epiphany during a bout of testing in the garden! During a bright day in hard light why would you need detail in the blacks as you're really only interested in capturing high and mids?

We have all these great cameras with amazing gamma curves that can hold onto highlights so why is it I can sit down of an evening and watch UK broadcast TV and see completely trollied highlights? It's almost as though someone somewhere has made an executive decision to use REC709 gamma for everything and top slice the super brights.

When I'm not doing animations I'm shooting short promos for web/intranet delivery and if I can shoot to preserve highlights and use the super brights in post then why can't the effing BBC?
 
MattDavis said:
I don't have Avid, and can't do FCP7 for a while due to time pressure but would be great to hear if the same is true in Avid (I'm 100% sure it is but can't demonstrate it).
Click to expand...

Also mentioned on the other thread.. i bring full range into Media Composer, Symp, MetaFuze & DS intact, nothing is clipped or crushed, Lightworks scales to video legal, again nothing clipped or crushed tho

I have little experience with PP or FCP, and a bad experience with 5D-RGB...

d
 
If lighting is contrasty, Frank's G-Log A 2.1 is a good starting point, expose for highlights (see 109% white threads), adjust black levels to suit. For flat, boringly lit scenes (offices, overcast skies) something based on ITU709 can give it some punch.

You'd need two at least. And PPs are like glasses - very personal recipes, you're expected to twiddle them to your liking. :)
 
AndrewTaran said:
So, what profile is the best for grading then if not using flat?
Click to expand...

Andrew I don't see it as chosing one particular PP that will make grading work best, or shooting "flat". Having good grading options later is more about good lighting when shooting and combining that with a PP that may help you get better overall exposure baked into the camera.

For example I'm using the big brother F3 camera and always shoot with cine gammas built-in for my work. I'm not so much after a "flat" look as I am chosing a gamma curve that will place my grey point in a decent spot relative to the rest of the scene so that the skin tones in particular are where I want them, and don't have to be moved around as much in post. What I tend to move around in post is the rest of the scenes ie. low and high tones. I also light my dark areas to around 10-18 IRE knowing I can crush them to black in post. The F3 now has an SLOG pp built in and I'm starting to shoot with only that for the higher dynamic range you get. The images for the most part are very flat looking but a small curve in post puts things back.

Here is something in the works shot "flat" and treated mildly then excessively:

Original:

Graded light:

Graded heavy:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top