scorsesefan
Veteran
Agreed. Overused and often in the wrong context. Same for drones. They need to be used judiciously and for a reason.
Fuji X-T3 released
- Thread starter Ken1212
- Start date
Agreed. Overused and often in the wrong context. Same for drones. They need to be used judiciously and for a reason.
scorsesefan
Veteran
Has anyone who works in PP had issues with the X-T3's h265 4K files? I tried working with them with proxies attached and I froze my Imac for 20 mins before force quit. There's also this: https://adobe-video.uservoice.com/forums/911233-premiere-pro/suggestions/35988715-h265-10bit-issues
puredrifting
Major Contributor
To be fair, 4K only matters for our two documentaries from a marketability standpoint, but 4K isn't mattering much for our clients. I shot the final interviews for the Sergio Mendes documentary I have been shooting the past two years last weekend. Client still requested 1080 and not 4K and this film will likely play in theaters as 2K upres. But I believe it already has some worldwide distribution, the film is already edited and these were just pickup interviews. From a media management and editorial standpoint, 4K is nothing but a hindrance so far ;-)
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I hear you. For our outrigger racing documentary, I was disappointed because out of the ten races we documented, all but two were in restricted airspace mostly, near LAX, John Wayne and San Diego airport, we couldn't launch, so we captured hardly any drone footage. We covered the Newport to Catalina 26 miles race with a drone op and I shot some practice sessions off of Redondo Beach and Dana Point Harbor from shore, but it wasn't much. The sad part is, drone 15' off the water is the perfect way to cover outrigger canoe racing, our keeper/usable ratio from shooting boat to boat was incredibly low from the surge and waves, but the hope is that we have enough to tell the stories. Luckily our Go Pros functioned about 60% of the time so we have that to get some close up drama but the Go pros themselves were a NIGHTMARE! Drone is 100% overused and to me, is often a crutch. Once again, if it's a motivated way to cover the story like they used it sparingly in Free Solo, then it's great.
scorsesefan
Veteran
Yeah "motivated" was the word I was searching for...
I posted on the Adobe forum and was advised to submit a bug report, which I did (for a 1DX II issue). You can do the same for the X-T3: https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2594318
Here's the direct link to submit a bug report: https://adobe-video.uservoice.com/forums/911233-premiere-pro
I checked the X-T3 report- probably best to make a single image that shows the problem side-by-side in one image without the GUI etc. (based on feedback when I submitted 1DX II with two separate files: hard to see the difference).
I think it's best to post on the forum as well as submit a report: they appear to work on "number of voices", so the more the merrier! (even if exact same bug already reported)
Resolve can work as a viable transcode tool, either ProRes, or better if it's an option, use QuickTime with Cineform: at least 2x better quality for bitrate than ProRes (so you can save at least 2x on disk space and also have higher quality). It's pretty easy to batch transcode (tutorials online if not clear from UI).
scorsesefan
Veteran
You're welcome, note that PP CC also produces a different gamma/contrast/video-data result vs. Resolve for the 1DX II.
marvinhello
Well-known member
On Windows, Premiere Pro CC 2019 shows X-T3 H.264 and H.265 files as identical. So I believe it's only limited to Mac.
But there's another issue, externally recorded ProRes files show different colour compared to internal files, it happens on both Mac and Windows, it's caused by colour metadata tags in internal files (BT.601 SDTV transfer function).
Yeah, too much slow mo for my taste. At some point it loses it's impact. Image looks good though.
One thing, from the point of view of a former fashion photographer (for 20 years in Paris) the pull to focus at 55sec is TOO sharp and unflattering from the makeup/skin point of view. We can see poor lighting and makeup work (the foundation is not properly matched to her skin and she looks quite blotchy). Definitely unflattering. I would encourage whoever made that video, to revisit shots like this. The precision of digital can be unforgiving...
scorsesefan
Veteran
I have to fire up Resolve and take a look at the files in there. To my eyes I'm not seeing the 12-13 stops in F-log I should be getting from the xt3 in PP (on Mac). But I'm really not at the top of my class as a pixel peeper (somewhere in the middle
puredrifting
Major Contributor
But if you listen to the industry, we all need to be shooting models in 16k man!
Look, I found a DVX/RED User post from the 2021, it was here underneath the rug.
"If you're not shooting with a RED Gargantuan at 16k, you're not a real filmmaker. Yep, Uh hum."
Run&Gun
Veteran
I remember the early days of transitioning to HD and the everyone worrying about make-up(among other things) and the sudden jump to all of the talent having their make-up airbrushed on. To this day I've still never seen it done in person, even at the network level(where it supposedly took off).
Not saying that there isn't a LOT of room for improvement, because I see lot's of bad make-up jobs almost daily on screen. Base that's no where close to matching the talents natural skin, ultra hard edges where it stops on their face and not blended to their neck, etc.
Jim Feeley
Veteran
What about this? Jump to 0:50 if you're in a hurry (Seems like the forum sw doesn't support YouTube's start-time function):
Airbrushing was more of a fashion thing. It happened on a lot of fashion photo shoots. However, fashion will always be more exacting than narrative work. Because the subject really is the aesthetic values that compose a "look", not the story. I saw it many times here in Paris, and I still think it is fantastic. However, make no mistake, you still need subjects with good skin.
One of the reasons why Lord of the Rings did not work at a higher frame rate (and shot on RED) is that if you view it on a large LED or LCD creen, you can see all the makeup. Nothing destroys a narrative more quickly than this for me.
I do agree with you, bad makeup is everywhere. One of the things I do before shooting someone's film, every day, is line up the actors and look at their hands, necks and faces to see if they match. Red hands and yellow faces on the same person just doesn't work, nor do a group of actors where the makeup is not coherent across the board. Trying to compensate in grading with secondaries later is a nightmare. This only has to happen to you once before you make darn sure that it never happens again.
In the video in question, it shows at 55sec, a poorly matched touch up to the left of her mouth and blotchy patches around the nose and eyes that just leaps out at the viewer. It makes me wonder if the singer actually saw that shot. I know that on pro music videos that I have worked on, it would be immediately rejected or returned to post for cleanup. For me the only way to deal with something like this is to change the lighting and the angle, use a softening filter either on camera or in post, or have quality makeup.
However, given that the video was originally posted here to talk about dealing with supposedly "soft" images in 120fps, I would say that it would have been wiser NOT to add sharpening and grain to that particular shot. This is one of the dangers in fact of doing this in post as opposed to in camera. It will definitely exaggerate skin issues. One thing is for sure, if there is a reason why people prefer an Alexa or Cooke lenses, this is it.
Last edited:
https://digitalanarchy.com/beautyVID/main.html
A similar effect can be done with masked/PowerWindows with NR/NeatVideo.
Another technique is a blur-blended video copy (not as extreme as other two methods but can work fine for many cases).
A bit easier now with Lumetri.
cyvideo
Veteran
My fave for quick skin tone smoothing and CC is still Red Giant's Cosmo, now on Cosmo II. Just 'gotta be part of my tool kit.
Chris Young
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLtZlJ9Eu1Mhttp://
Chris Young
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLtZlJ9Eu1Mhttp://
puredrifting
Major Contributor
My main problem with the digital post tools isn't do they work or not, it's that it's usually an editor or colorist and not a makeup artist sitting in the edit bay. Example number one above just takes a detailed image and turns it to mush, the softening looks so obvious.
The PP example, some of the results look like plastic robots
The best example is when the instructor in the PP video says that "Blending modes can be used subtley" That's the key to NOT overdue it. We should never make humans look "perfect", we should make them look human. I use Portrait Professional for stills and it's scary at how ridiculous the effects are even at default 40-50% mode. I usually dial it back to about 10-15% and my favorite option for video is very subtle diffusion and blend modes. I recently edited an interview with a 94 year old woman and it would look ridiculous to try to make her look "perfect" with no wrinkles, which is what a lot of editors and clients would try to do. I've also had women, believe it or not, react to what they perceived as over editing and softening of their imperfections, "That looks good, but it doesn't look like me". We have reached a point with digital post production tricks where humans end up looking more like avatars than good looking humans. It's a huge problem and one of my pet peeves as I can spot an over post processed face a mile away and it looks ridiculous, not even human. I'm def a fan of natural beauty and the other factor is good lighting. If you are trying to make a face look good, light it well for beauty, that should take care of at least 50-60% of skin and structural issues. Sloppy post processing is a poor fix for bad/unflattering lighting.