Image Quality: In-Camera or Post?

[Macphilia]

Hi,

With ONLY IMAGE QUALITY in mind, is it "best/ideal" to manipulate footage in camera or in post?

For example, adjusting the Master Pedestal vs. lowering black levels; Chroma Level vs. lowering saturation levels; Color Temp vs. adjusting color settings.

I realize there are other considerations, such as not being able to undo in-camera settings, especially with master ped.

My main concern is the eventual quality of the image. My guess is that adjusting levels in post seems to "degrade" image quality.

Thanks

 

[jdmoviemaker]

You can get some noise from setting levels in post.
especially gamma.
What I did is I connected my dvx to my mac. with Fce HD & I set everything
for all conditions on my mac.
So when I imported footage it wouldn't need any correction. :happy:
It was just my idea because my mac monitor is identical to a TV.
This helped me personally.

 

[dvxhutch]

It depends what you mean by "in post". If you just mean a NLE like FCP or PREMIERE, then definitely try and get what you want in camera, as NLEs have low-end color correction capabilities, which are not considered to be of a professional standard.

However, if you're wanting to transfer to film, then a professional color grade will give you unbelievable results - they will not degrade but ENHANCE the images and colors. The problem is the cost - a Davinci session will set you back upwards of $500 an hour. However, Apple's COLOR in Final Cut Studio 2 is a high-end grader which, if you use it on a good set-up, will deliver comparable (if slower) results.

Ultimately, it comes down to your hardware as well - don't expect great rseults on a macbook say, as oppossed to a mac pro with a good video card.

 

[phorus]

My main concern is the eventual quality of the image. My guess is that adjusting levels in post seems to "degrade" image quality.

The dropdown depends of the amount of processing the image and your 'skills' of manipulating the image and which kind of post processing tools you use. But still, the drop will be very slight and shouldnt be even a big issue or thing to worry..
The image may be slightly better in quality if its straight from camera, but still not better looking than color corrected/processed vid.
I personally would never ever use raw only -material. To me, post editing is one of the most important parts when doing vids, especially contrast and color adjusts.. Just like in paintings, colors and contrasts plays really huge role of making it look good, not only the sharp lines..

People always rant about the image quality "Do it only in camera!" and stuffs like that, but the truth is that DVX's options are really simple and poor to fully rely on. If your video is looking 'high quality' but looks bad and "amateurish" because its raw material, its not good deal either.
I think its 5050, either you have to have _very slight_ dropdown in your image quality and get good looking stuff, or get the best quality and have flat videoish looking stuff..

But then again, it really depends what you are after -> musicvideo, document stuff, reality stuff, movie.. Its all about what you want and what suits to your needs. But for example if you do a musicvideo and use raw dvx material, it will just look bad and its really worth of losing a tiny bit of quality than keep it that way IMO..

But the answer to original question: The quality dropdown isnt anyway near as some people are worried, its very very very very very very slight, almost unnoticeable or fully unnoticeable. Dont worry about it.. Just shoot stuff, edit it, be artistic and express your visions as best way as possible

 

[Macphilia]

It depends what you mean by "in post". If you just mean a NLE like FCP or PREMIERE, then definitely try and get what you want in camera, as NLEs have low-end color correction capabilities, which are not considered to be of a professional standard.

Yeah, at this time, I'm simply using an iMac Dual Core with the default video card, and I'm on FCP 5. So I don't have any sophisticated equipment or a budget for sophisticated services.

Thanks!

 

[Macphilia]

But the answer to original question: The quality dropdown isnt anyway near as some people are worried, its very very very very very very slight, almost unnoticeable or fully unnoticeable. Dont worry about it.. Just shoot stuff, edit it, be artistic and express your visions as best way as possible

I appreciate your final comment. Overall, some quality loss is not a big deal in the world of low-budget shorts. In the end, people simply want a great viewing experience, regardless of some technical flaws.

Actually, the truth is that most people don't even notice the flaws, except bad sound!!!

Thanks.....

 

[phorus]

I appreciate your final comment. Overall, some quality loss is not a big deal in the world of low-budget shorts. In the end, people simply want a great viewing experience, regardless of some technical flaws.

Yes, I think its very important to give right moods and feelings to audience than giving them only hq of hq stuff to look at

 

[seunosewa]

Here's my position:
If you can, do it in camera.
It saves time, and introduces fewer artifacts.
What you can't do in camera, do in post. It will probably be good enough.

 

[MasterP]

In camera is all good... if you have a production monitor (or something like Adobe's OnLocation) to give you an accurate representation of how it really looks.

The circumstances differ depending on your shooting situation though
eg. for a 48 hour film festival, you'd probably want to do most in camera (to cut down on post time) for a short, doc or a feature you may be better to go with footage that's suited to manipulate in post

I normally shoot with a bit more contrast in camera to minimize having to mess with stuff in post, but lately I've been shooting "flat" and really getting into messing with the image in after effects (good to learn new techniques, you know?)

Either way, the images end up looking fine at the end - don't think about it too much