Mark 3 questions

New_Zealand said:
Look good!
Click to expand...

Thanks :)

Dave © said:
Yeah, I had an aha moment a couple of months back when Dusty said he set detail at 1 from the left (as opposed to all the way to the left, as I had been doing before then). Huge difference! I agree. The 5DIII is plenty sharp (even though I know I've said that is doesn't seem sharp in the past).

Footage looks nice. Are these shots straight out of the camera or did you grade them?
Click to expand...

Slightly graded (Just curves to give more contrast and a slight bit of 3 way, nothing major).
I was using prolost flat and am now trying out cinestyle...the amount of shadow detail it gives is incredible! :)
 
Would you try Flaat? It has some downsides (noise in the heavily-pushed-up shadows, color shifts) but skin tones are awesome (especially with Tone=1)
 
Samuel H said:
Would you try Flaat? It has some downsides (noise in the heavily-pushed-up shadows, color shifts) but skin tones are awesome (especially with Tone=1)
Click to expand...

I have in fact tried Flaat. My main problem with it is that it isn't exactly flat... It's in fact less flat than neutral...One thing i have to give it credit for is that even being more vivid, it does seem to hold more shadow detail than neutral. I quite like flaat_10 and it'll be my workhorse for anything with people in it as it does have nice skintones. However, I like cinestyle as it does give a flatter image to grade. As of now I have both flaat_10 and cinestyle installed and will be using both as the situation requires. Flaat_11's dynamic range is gorgeous but a little too noisy for my taste.

*ps, what is all the fuss about having to re-load PPs after formatting the card? I've tried formatting and both cine and flaat were still there. Sorry if it's a silly question :happy:
 
Last edited:
All good, then :)
In any case: the definition of "flat" I used for designing Flaat has nothing to do with how vivid the image is. I designed it to be flat in the sense that the lightness response function is near-logaritmic: there is no in-built S-curve, contrast is evenly distributed across the DR (except there's a rolloff in the shadows; it would be a bad idea to make it flat there too). That is: it is only flat in the luminance axis. It does have higher saturation than other "flat" options, as I found it is a better way to use the very limited color space (in the extreme, if you shoot nearly black-and-white and try to add saturation in post, you'll be headed for trouble).

No idea about the formatting thing. Maybe it's a magic lantern thing? Does the 5D3 ML allow you to load more PPs into the card? That's an old feature request that could explain such a thing.
 
Samuel H said:
All good, then :)
In any case: the definition of "flat" I used for designing Flaat has nothing to do with how vivid the image is. I designed it to be flat in the sense that the lightness response function is near-logaritmic: there is no in-built S-curve, contrast is evenly distributed across the DR (except there's a rolloff in the shadows; it would be a bad idea to make it flat there too). That is: it is only flat in the luminance axis. It does have higher saturation than other "flat" options, as I found it is a better way to use the very limited color space (in the extreme, if you shoot nearly black-and-white and try to add saturation in post, you'll be headed for trouble).

No idea about the formatting thing. Maybe it's a magic lantern thing? Does the 5D3 ML allow you to load more PPs into the card? That's an old feature request that could explain such a thing.
Click to expand...

Ah I see. If only flaat_11 was as clean as 10, that would be spectacular
Cinestyle's giving me a headache with skin tones. Although that's probably just my limited colour grading skills. heh. :) But I love cinestyle's shadow details and highlights.
 
Last edited:
gonzo_entertainment said:
Start adding much contrast back to cinestyle and in my experience they start to take on an orange cast.
Click to expand...

Depends. If you add contrast using the RGB curves, you will also add saturation (usually making skin tones more orange) If you use the luma curve, you will lose saturation. It all depends on how you color correct the footage. Nothing to do with cinestyle.
 
maarek said:
Depends. If you add contrast using the RGB curves, you will also add saturation (usually making skin tones more orange) If you use the luma curve, you will lose saturation. It all depends on how you color correct the footage. Nothing to do with cinestyle.
Click to expand...

Interesting, this is why I have my serious stuff color corrected by someone who knows what they're doing.
 
Donald Ong said:
anyway, here's the edited test film (using footage from Friday)
Nothing too fancy, just footage cut together simply. Sharpened and graded slightly.


Footage doesn't seem soft as everyone is saying. With a little sharpening (in fact, even without it), the footage really pops. Definitely not soft at all. Dynamic range was definitely not as good as a BMCC or c300, but still very manageable. *ps, sorry for the slightly jittery motion in some shots...i wasn't strictly adhering to 1/50 shutter. Most of the shots are at 1/125 ish. ISO was mostly at 160. All shot handheld and without rig/mono.
Click to expand...

Nicely done. Did you use All I? And which NLE did you cut on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top