Lense Diffusion Vs. Shooting "clean" (?)

W

wiseur

New member
(This post refers to shooting on the dvx100 without 35mm adapter, but I'm pretty sure the topic is relevant in both cases...)

I carry a filter package with various NDs, softedged grads, and black pro mist. The ND's and grads are primarely used for controlling f-stop. I prefer shooting at open apperture or max f2.8, for shallow depth of field.

I usually cram the 1/2 Black pro mist filter in the mattebox and keep it there until we wrap shooting. I do this to get rid of some of that nasty video-sharpness. Plus I like the subtle glow around my highlights, although some might think it's bit over the top.

I also like to crush my blacks in camera (dvx100 master ped at around -10). Combined with the BPM filtration, I get a sort of "signature" look. This is of course relative, as I tweak it for each scene and story...

My question is:

1. Do you prefer to filtration in camera (thus degrading your image)?

or do you:

2. Shoot unfiltrated, to keep the image "clean" to work with in post?

(OR MAYBE A COMBINATION OF THE 2)



PROS AND CONS ANYONE?
 
In the camera I don't believe I degrade the image. I think you should do it on the camera. Yes I know then your choices are limited; but if you know what you want then it's good. When you shoot clean everything you do in post like color correction would reduce the quality then ur original footage. Now I might be wrong but thats how it works for me.
 
The grads, of course, give you a look you can't duplicate with in-camera processing.

Glass versus in-camera processing versus post CC...

I ran a whole slew of tests with combinations of various filters (both 72mm screw type and 4x4 mattebox). I ran a number of tests with in-camera processing. And I ran a number of tests with color correction in post. The conclusion that I came to is that each method changes the image in different ways. And that although you can get a fairly good simulation of one kind of change with another, it can never produce exactly the same image. So, for example, if I shoot through a warm 87 filter, the look that I get is different than if I create a scene-file that simulates a warm 87 filter, and that will look different from a warm 87 effect applied in post.

In my opinion, glass filters provide much subtler control over the look and a softer image that is, to me, recognizably photographic. You know, the image is different even before it hits the sensors. And I think that shows.

DVX_Filters.jpg


In my opinion, in-camera processing provides a much sharper and more radical change of look. You can get color changes that are complex and that can simulate film stock and chemical processing. And because the processing is applied on the full resolution image, before it is compressed, the looks to me are noticeably higher quality than similar looks that are accomplished in post.

Of course in post you have the greatest control and the most time to tinker, and with something like After Effects you can basically accomplish any kind of look. But also, most post color processing looks to me like it produces subtle color artifacts. It just seems to me that when you algorithmically alter a compressed color image, some of the colors that are very similar in the original image will be mapped to identical colors in the result, causing a very subtle loss of color resolution. Perhaps this will not be the case with Final Cut Studio 2's "Color" program. (Can't wait to see.)

So... I say use all three ... glass, in-camera coloring, and post to get the most unique "signature" looks.
 
Nice post Andy.

I've stumbled across a couple of other posts on this subject. It seems most people like to shoot as close to the final result in camera. When shooting on the dvx that is. In the hvx forum there is a more polarized debate, since it has less color compression.

I've grown used to shooting digital as though it was film (finishing in camera for later tweaking). I actually like this way of thinking, but it seems like shooting "flat" has its advantages. Is this the end of the cinematographer? Or has part his job simply moved from the set to the computerscreen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top