Magic Bullet for HVX footage?

P

Phil Maker

Well-known member
I shot my footage in 720/24pn.

The lighting is great.
I forced perspective every chance I got with plenty of shallow D.O.F.
I moved the camera like the pros do.
I color corrected masterfully.

I'm still not achieving the "film look".

There's a softness that I'm not getting - still a little too crisp and clean for my taste.

Is Red Giant's Magic Bullet my answer?
Will this software give me that last something I've been looking for?
Has anyone used Magic Bullet software on HVX 720/24p footage?

If so, I'd love to see some of that footage here.

I talked to a guy who swears he cannot tell the difference between Magic Bullet altered footage, and film.

There's only one movie I've ever seen that I swore was film and ended up being video.
That movie was Zodiac.
I'd like to achieve similar filmic quality results.
Anyone?
 
Last edited:
I thought Apocalypto looked really good too.

I use Magic Bullet. It takes a long time to render and you have to make sure the color matches from shot to shot, but the effects are really nice. It won't fix badly shot footage.
 
Last edited:
The reason zodiac looked more like film is because it was shot with the Viper Filmstream fully uncompressed directly to giant harddrives. It also helps that it's at 2:37:1 aspect ratio which is basically cinemascope. No other digital camera does that.
Also, Harris Savides shot it and had tons of $ and David Fincher behind him.:happy:


Phil Maker said:
I shot my footage in 720/24pn.

The lighting is great.
I forced perspective every chance I got with plenty of shallow D.O.F.
I moved the camera like the pros do.
I color corrected masterfully.

I'm still not achieving the "film look".

There's a softness that I'm not getting - still a little too crisp and clean for my taste.

Is Red Giant's Magic Bullet my answer?
Will this software give me that last something I've been looking for?
Has anyone used Magic Bullet software on HVX 720/24p footage?

If so, I'd love to see some of that footage here.

I talked to a guy who swears he cannot tell the difference between Magic Bullet altered footage, and film.

There's only one movie I've ever seen that I swore was film and ended up being video.
That movie was Zodiac.
I'd like to achieve similar filmic quality results.
Anyone?
Click to expand...
 
You know something that I never see mentioned when people throw around the "film look" term? Filters.

I don't know if my experience just varies greatly from the norm, or what, but nearly all the video shoots that I have been, in my admitedly short experience, they shoot with a naked lens.

Sure some get a Brevis or some other 35mm Adapter and get shalower DoF from the lenses, but I hardly ever see anyone discussing filtration anymore.

Its been my understanding (and first hand experience in a few commerical shoots) that cinematographers almost never shoot naked.

Wasnt Magic Bullet designed to basically mimic certain filtrations? Instead of using it, why not experiment with some diffusion?

I find that a well used black pro mist can really take some of that electronic look out of the HVX. Heck, even a polarizing filter provides a very subtle amount of diffusion to any scene, and it can make your skys pop as well. Gold F/X filters are great if you want that glamourous look. A very light lavender filter can be great in enhancing skin outdoors and getting rid of some of the haze in an outdoor shoot, helping make colors really pop.

I've even heard of DPs that swear by using streched pantyhose in the rear element of the lens (make and brand vary as each DP swears by his favorite fabric/brand :D ), of course this is only possible if you're shooting with a 35mm Adaptor, and the adaptor itself provides a bit of diffusion on its own, so it might not be a viable technique with the HVX.


I'm sorry if I'm hijacking this thread, this is a topic that I've been thinking about writing about in this forum for a while and your post just gave that opportunity
 
I have the magic bullet editors 2 and it does a nice job adding looks to the hvx. It is not a substitute for using the P&S 35mm

http://www.pstechnik.de/en/digitalfilm-mini35-converter.php

If you really need the look, rent this system and a set of primes. The redrock adaper is kind of wanky in comparison. I just worked on a promo (as a DAM) with 4 units and 4 DPs who were amazed by the results (these DPs are not noobs, some had 20+ years experience). We had swing and tilt on one of the units and that was also amazing.

Filters in post will only get you so far. They are a great tool to have though.

Filters in front of the lense can be nice, but make sure you know excatly what you are doing and everyone agrees on the look before you do anything that can't be undone later.
 
Well, so far I haven't seen any footage that makes me want to run out and buy Magic Bullet.

Does anyone have any 720/24p footage that was put through Magic Bullet that actually looks GOOD? (Big Mike - your pics look good, but I would like to see video) Thanks.
 
Last edited:
VenezuelanD said:
You know something that I never see mentioned when people throw around the "film look" term? Filters.

I don't know if my experience just varies greatly from the norm, or what, but nearly all the video shoots that I have been, in my admitedly short experience, they shoot with a naked lens.

Sure some get a Brevis or some other 35mm Adapter and get shalower DoF from the lenses, but I hardly ever see anyone discussing filtration anymore.

Its been my understanding (and first hand experience in a few commerical shoots) that cinematographers almost never shoot naked.

Wasnt Magic Bullet designed to basically mimic certain filtrations? Instead of using it, why not experiment with some diffusion?

I find that a well used black pro mist can really take some of that electronic look out of the HVX. Heck, even a polarizing filter provides a very subtle amount of diffusion to any scene, and it can make your skys pop as well. Gold F/X filters are great if you want that glamourous look. A very light lavender filter can be great in enhancing skin outdoors and getting rid of some of the haze in an outdoor shoot, helping make colors really pop.

I've even heard of DPs that swear by using streched pantyhose in the rear element of the lens (make and brand vary as each DP swears by his favorite fabric/brand :D ), of course this is only possible if you're shooting with a 35mm Adaptor, and the adaptor itself provides a bit of diffusion on its own, so it might not be a viable technique with the HVX.


I'm sorry if I'm hijacking this thread, this is a topic that I've been thinking about writing about in this forum for a while and your post just gave that opportunity
Click to expand...
I think one reason is cost. Filters are expensive, and with the resolution of the HVX showing the pores on your subjects nose in 1080i, you can't afford to risk shots with cheap resin filters. That said a lot of people here don't live where its even feasible to rent filters to experiment with, and at 150-300 a pop for 1/4 increments theres not a lot of room for trial and error. The digital tweaking just should not be overdone, and magic bullet gives you a lot of latitude with toning down diffusion etc to get a custom look out of already great canned looks. But no filter is gonna help us achieve a great looking bleach bypass or color reversal, its a chemical process that I would'nt begin to know how to achieve without a guide like MB. So Phil if your lighting is great then I think MB is your answer. I'd also look at Colorista as well. I have however picked up some promist filters for close-ups.

I'm a poster child for post...i love to tweak

1174278647.jpg
Original
1174278692.jpg
Tinderbox 4 which has my favorite Bleach Bypass
1174278778.jpg
Magic Bullet had to tone down the diffusion geesh
1174278913.jpg
My AE recipe layer transfer modes/curves/levels/solids
 
Last edited:
Zooming in to get shalower DOF is not enough to get the filmic look. In fact, if you zoom in , you hardly can get any medium to wide shots with shallow DOF, which are also important. Bokeh is also something to consider.

AS for Magic Bullet, it does indeed add to the film look. Just Look at SAW series, or, CSI, or 24. Their coloring techniques are very similar to Magic Bullet presets, and They all (in their unique way) look very film like. SAW a bit over the top, as well as CSI, but all this was filmed with HD. Post production coloring is fundamental- if you have the budget, go to a Post House, and ask a colorist to telecine your movie and color correct it in a Da Vinci: its worth it.'

EDIT- The Said Movies were shot in film, as stated in IMDB. It doesn't take out the fact that they were very heavily color corrected, tough. These looks can very well be achieved on video.
 
Last edited:
Umm i'm fairly certain that the three shows you just mentioned are filmed in 35mm. In fact, I just checked IMDB and all three Saws movies, the Original CSI and 24 are all shot on 35mm, not sure about all the other CSI offshoots but I believe those are shot on film as well.
 
Okay, I've posted about 30 seconds of before/after Magic Bullet. Excuse the quality of the short, it was shot for a one week film project and I ran out of time.

I'm only using this as an example of what Magic Bullet does, and to get the best results you want to have the best looking footage you can before you use MB. If your video looks like video or if it looks like crap going in, MB won't be doing you much good.

The next to the last shot was done at Golden Hour. The first thing you see is untreated, straight from the camera. Then it goes to a few of the presets.

The last shot is a rack focus that I did in Premiere using junk mattes. After Effects is much better for doing things like this, but I was in a hurry and wanted to get to bed last night.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5EVjImwds2c
 
Take a look at FMP at videocopilot.net Its just an idea because Magic Bullet rendering for SD footage on a fast machine still sucks, with HD I dont even want to imagine. FMP are AE presets that render about 6x faster than MB and give pretty much the same results, with easier tweakability.

- Kyle
 
cinebuddy said:
I think one reason is cost. Filters are expensive, and with the resolution of the HVX showing the pores on your subjects nose in 1080i, you can't afford to risk shots with cheap resin filters. That said a lot of people here don't live where its even feasible to rent filters to experiment with, and at 150-300 a pop for 1/4 increments theres not a lot of room for trial and error. The digital tweaking just should not be overdone, and magic bullet gives you a lot of latitude with toning down diffusion etc to get a custom look out of already great canned looks. But no filter is gonna help us achieve a great looking bleach bypass or color reversal, its a chemical process that I would'nt begin to know how to achieve without a guide like MB. So Phil if your lighting is great then I think MB is your answer. I'd also look at Colorista as well. I have however picked up some promist filters for close-ups.

I'm a poster child for post...i love to tweak

1174278647.jpg
Original
1174278692.jpg
Tinderbox 4 which has my favorite Bleach Bypass
1174278778.jpg
Magic Bullet had to tone down the diffusion geesh
1174278913.jpg
My AE recipe layer transfer modes/curves/levels/solids
Click to expand...

Man, those whites are WAY too blown out!
 
KyleProhaska said:
Take a look at FMP at videocopilot.net Its just an idea because Magic Bullet rendering for SD footage on a fast machine still sucks, with HD I dont even want to imagine. FMP are AE presets that render about 6x faster than MB and give pretty much the same results, with easier tweakability.

- Kyle
Click to expand...

Video Copilot does have a cool trick for rack focusing. It almost makes me think I don't need my M2 adapter.

I edit in Premiere then import the project into After Effects. You can do all of your effects on your project in AE and then use the AE render engine to render your project.

AT 720 24p, it took five hours to render a ten minute short in After Effects with several chroma-keys and blurs. Blurs take much longer to render than MB.
The problem with this workflow is that when you apply effects to a project, you really don't see how it looks until after you've performed the render. You can't see what you're doing in real time in AE.

The rendering of the project is what kept me from meeting the deadline of the film contest. There were too many problems, too. I need to stabilize motion on a couple chroma-key shots, etc.
 
Yeah Matt that's before dummy knew tha a lil animal named zebra was his friend. I don't find MB render times to be as bad as they were, especially now that you can use your vid cards gpu. I purchased the FMP package and have to say while a clever package it wouldn't be my choice over MB.
 
Yesterday I rendered a dv sequence of 3.30 on a G5 quad in after effects 6.5 with magic bullet, adjusting contrast, applying filter, diffusion etc and it took 35mins.
 
VenezuelanD said:
Umm i'm fairly certain that the three shows you just mentioned are filmed in 35mm. In fact, I just checked IMDB and all three Saws movies, the Original CSI and 24 are all shot on 35mm, not sure about all the other CSI offshoots but I believe those are shot on film as well.
Click to expand...

My blummer, there. Didn't do my research right. I remember the 24 cinematographer doing a test with the 35mm adapters, so figured they were going for HD in the show (if not for some B-roll). As for CSI and Saw, their coloring is so Over the Top that I never tought that was shot in FIlm. Should've checked before posting. My bad.

Just checked IMDB and it says both Spider-mans were shot on film. Wasn't at least one of them shot with the Sony F950 ?

EDIT- Anyway, here's the example I should've pointed out in the first place: 28 Days Later. This film was shot with a Canon XL1S !

Go to IMDB and look at the stills- That's what color correction, telecine, a good lens and excelent lighting do for you. WOuld you say that was not shot on film by looking at the stills?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top