Grading GH1 footage

P

PIMP

Well-known member
I am falling in love with gh1 footage that I have seen. However one thing that i havent seen much is graded footage with gh1. Someone said that the weak codec in the camera makes it less then ideal to use alot of color correct. Can someone enlighten me as to cc with the camera? Because right now i am shooting with the hvx200 and g35 and i am into extreme color correcting.

thanks

o
 
From what I understand, it is better to transcode to a less compressed format if you plan on color correcting (prores, cineform, etc). Some people around here have done it with great success.
The most important part is to make sure the GH1 is set so that it doesn´t crush the blacks when recording, specially since the AVCHD codec tends to lose detail on the shadows (use low contrast, cinema curve).
 
I set my GH1 to lower saturation and contrast while recording so I can really crush things later without already having lost too much detail.

This video I did was all converted to ProRes and lightly color graded, heavily color graded on the skyline shots (they were really hazy, etc.)

I am sure there are better examples but I like to use my own footage because then I can answer questions.

http://vimeo.com/5973768


As for photos, even when not shot raw, handle grading really well. My friend that graded a few of them for me was looking at the results and saying "wow now I see why you turned those settings down, before I was skeptical..but look...I did a ton of work on it and all the detail is still there; wow."
 
Ben_B said:
I set my GH1 to lower saturation and contrast while recording so I can really crush things later without already having lost too much detail.

This video I did was all converted to ProRes and lightly color graded, heavily color graded on the skyline shots (they were really hazy, etc.)

I am sure there are better examples but I like to use my own footage because then I can answer questions.

http://vimeo.com/5973768
Click to expand...

Nice work Ben! Some of the best stuff I have seen yet.
 
I am not sure what film mode I started with, I think Standard, but my My Film 1 is set to something like -1 Saturation, -2 Noise Reduction, 0/+1 Sharpness, and (the important one) -2 Contrast.

The high-contrast look is popular but it's better to do it in post because you lose detail in blacks and whites when you up contrast in camera, and if you get as much detail as you can while shooting and then do things in post you have more control, and can say, deepen the blacks but keep the whites the same, etc.

I was boosting my contrast and sat for photos since I don't do much post work on photos, but after seeing what a friend has managed to do with some of my GH1 photos that were taken with my video settings I think I will stick to the same film mode for everything.
 
Have a look at this film - http://www.joe-shaw.co.uk/?p=341

That is graded within Edius 5 using Magic Bullet Looks. The in camera settings were all set to 0.

You can push the footage a little bit - but not a lot. You will notice it fall apart much quicker than you would be used to with say an HVX200.

I've experimented a bit with working in After Effects and changing the project to a 16bpc or 32bpc and this seems to help the footage go further.

I think there is a very good argument for trying to achieve as much in camera as possible - using the camera settings and filters.
 
Your "My Film 1" still uses one of the "Film Modes" like Standard, Nostalgic, Dynamic, etc. Is your "My Film 1" set to "Standard?"
 
jshaw300 said:
Have a look at this film - http://www.joe-shaw.co.uk/?p=341

That is graded within Edius 5 using Magic Bullet Looks. The in camera settings were all set to 0.

You can push the footage a little bit - but not a lot. You will notice it fall apart much quicker than you would be used to with say an HVX200.

I've experimented a bit with working in After Effects and changing the project to a 16bpc or 32bpc and this seems to help the footage go further.

I think there is a very good argument for trying to achieve as much in camera as possible - using the camera settings and filters.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. Whenever I shoot with Sat and contrast down, I seem to want more color in post, and pushing it up just exacerbates the banding artifacts like crazy, so I've started shooting with sat +2 and contrast at 0- +2 depending on the scene. If you look at the footage on the rgb parade scope as you push up the mids and highs, you can see holes and banding develop quickly.

When exposing, I try to stay on the high side, because having to push anything up in CC'ing is pretty disastrous, but pulling it down works great.

My plan is only to leave coloring for post, because that works fine. I try to get contrast and saturation as close to a 'final' image as I can in-camera, which has seemed to produce the best results.
 
Tim Joy said:
I agree completely. Whenever I shoot with Sat and contrast down, I seem to want more color in post, and pushing it up just exacerbates the banding artifacts like crazy, so I've started shooting with sat +2 and contrast at 0- +2 depending on the scene. If you look at the footage on the rgb parade scope as you push up the mids and highs, you can see holes and banding develop quickly.

When exposing, I try to stay on the high side, because having to push anything up in CC'ing is pretty disastrous, but pulling it down works great.

My plan is only to leave coloring for post, because that works fine. I try to get contrast and saturation as close to a 'final' image as I can in-camera, which has seemed to produce the best results.
Click to expand...

What codec have you transcoded to?
 
Nice footage Ben. Really liked the lightening strike and the use of dutch angles where the shots are tilted. All in all looks great and I like the song too.

What did you think to the Nikon lens? Better than the Canon FD equivalents?
 
Thanks for the compliments :)

Never shot with the Canon FD's so I think it'd be unfair to answer.

I will say this though: I bought Nikon glass and a Nikon adapter for a reason. Nikon has a reputation for having excellent optics, and Nikon has instant recognition as a quality brand, so you look good when you pull out Nikon glass.

Also the main reason is that most of my friends shoot on Nikon, and even the one with the 5D has a Nikon adapter...so I went ahead and followed the "go with the brand your friends have so you can borrow their lenses" logic that is so often the deciding factor whenever a person is picking Canon or Nikon for anything!

Plus I've never much enjoyed shooting with Canon cameras (video, still, whatever) so that might be part of the reason....they make excellent copy machines however :)

My Nikon 50mm f/1.4 is from 1969 or so, snagged it on Ebay, and it works great...that should maybe tell you something.
 
Here's a little test I did the other day: http://vimeo.com/6260936

It's probably just me feeling nostalgic, but does anyone feel like the DVX still beats a lot of the HD cameras and video DSLRs as far as the colors go? There's something about the texture of the DVX image that still really gets me going in a way nothing else has. It's the old "DVX mojo" thing I suppose. I wouldn't necessarily go back to the DVX now (especially not with the hassle of using a 35mm adapter) but I dunno, my favorite images I've made are still probably things I shot the first couple years I had my DVX.
 
In general the principles Stu lays out in that article are all sound, but I think the GH1's compression complicates matters further. Barry Green has mentioned that there was unrecoverable detail lost in some cases shooting the GH1 at -2 sharpening. Read about it here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1710037&postcount=6

Because the GH1 has somewhat unpredictable/variable compression, it may not make as much sense to shoot everything totally 'flat.'

Perhaps a similar argument could be made with respect to baking in certain color/contrast decisions at the shooting stage, since in theory the camera is performing said alterations to a much 'denser' signal than the 17mbps one you get in post. You're sacrificing flexibility in post, but maybe you're gaining a better image (assuming everything went as planned). I find the accuracy of the EVF and the histogram makes this option a lot more attractive, although still not exactly optimal.
 
That's why I shoot only -1 saturation not -2. Also why I shoot 0 or +1 sharpness.

I figure noise reduction is going to soften things up, that's a no-no.

Also I know from experience using the thing that cranking contrast is a no-no in camera as it really does bake out a lot of the detail, and you are actually getting more detail in highlights/shadows when you lower the contrast...I know, I can see it!
 
Ben_B said:
Thanks for the compliments :)

Never shot with the Canon FD's so I think it'd be unfair to answer.

I will say this though: I bought Nikon glass and a Nikon adapter for a reason. Nikon has a reputation for having excellent optics, and Nikon has instant recognition as a quality brand, so you look good when you pull out Nikon glass.

Also the main reason is that most of my friends shoot on Nikon, and even the one with the 5D has a Nikon adapter...so I went ahead and followed the "go with the brand your friends have so you can borrow their lenses" logic that is so often the deciding factor whenever a person is picking Canon or Nikon for anything!

Plus I've never much enjoyed shooting with Canon cameras (video, still, whatever) so that might be part of the reason....they make excellent copy machines however :)

My Nikon 50mm f/1.4 is from 1969 or so, snagged it on Ebay, and it works great...that should maybe tell you something.
Click to expand...

Ben, my father also own a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 lens. Probably around the 70s. I'm planning to use his lens; where can I get an Nikon to m4/3 adaptor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top