Marvels Advanced 3.4?

JoeJITSU

JoeJITSU

Veteran
Which is better and why? I will be using these for mostly weddings, thanks
 
Last edited:
3.3 was from a year and somewhat ago. 3.4 is the latest and a newer slightly flatter profile. It gives me relatively low noise clips when graded, but I find it very critical of white balance and still tends to give plasticy skin tones. Seems like I have play around too much with each clip to get them to match.

Cheers,
Pete
 
c3hammer said:
3.3 was from a year and somewhat ago. 3.4 is the latest and a newer slightly flatter profile. It gives me relatively low noise clips when graded, but I find it very critical of white balance and still tends to give plasticy skin tones. Seems like I have play around too much with each clip to get them to match.

Cheers,
Pete
Click to expand...
So what do you use then and why?
 
Pros and cons:

Cinestyle more shadow information in the darkest parts of the image, but has more noise issues when not used properly. I.e. expecting to use all the shadow info that has been bumped up. It has to be pushed back down to get clean again.

Marvel is a bit more moderate, but still very flat. A big difference between it and cinestyle is the black levels. Cinestyle actually changes the black point. you may or may not like how it looks in the end. Depends on your work flow and aesthetic.

These flat styles can help you get that extra shadow detail, but at some trade offs, and with little to no DR benefits.

Use the flat profiles when shooting outdoors in high key light situations, and use something like negative 2 contrast in neutral when shooting in soft incandescent low light. Low soft light is already low contrast. No need for a flat picture style.

In this video comparison, you can test out the Cinestyle and Marvel 3.4, it has both 5D and 60D versions.

Download the file:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37533131/5Dvs60Dpse.mpeg
 
I don't like the noise in the final images with CineStyle, and I don't like the clay-looking skin tones from Marvels Cine after grading (probably my fault: not skilled enough at color grading), that's why I created Flaat, which is a different kind of flat from previous options (there's contrast and saturation, but it's evenly distributed across the image) - give it a try! (Flaat_2 is the most standard option) http://www.similaar.com/foto/flaat-picture-styles/index.html
 
JoeJITSU said:
So what do you use then and why?
Click to expand...
To be honest I haven't found one to hang my hat on yet :)

I've been bouncing back and forth between Cinestyle, Marvels 3.4, James's rec303-s0723L finished and Norman Bates flaat2.

I have acheived my best results with Marvel's 3.4, but it is alot of work in every single clip. Both the rec303 finished and the flaat2 are too warm and saturated for my bias in grading while at the same time are the simplest to get good results from.

Cinestyle is awesome, but super noisy in the mid tones when boosted at all. It's not the shadows that are a problem with it, but the large areas of mid nothing that go crazy and ruin what would otherwise be incredible clips. You can see the dancing noise going crazy in what would otherwise be nothing in most PS's. It definitely shows that Cinestyle is robbing mid tones to boost shadows and flatten the hightlights.

In the end of the day a desaturated REC303 finished, flaat2 or Marvels 3.4 seems to be easiest to get the money from so far. I do have to stress that this is all based on my limited ability to grade well in Vegas. Flaat2 would be my prefered PS if I could simply create an s-log like luminance curve, but Vegas only lets me work in RGB curves which blow up the saturation at the same time effectively doubling my workload.

In the end of the day I haven't found the perfect PS for me and my current workflow. Maybe someday :)

Cheers,
Pete
 
Here's a new variation of R3... "R3_m2006L"

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37533131/R3_m2006L.pf2

and a photoshop document which shows different picture styles in relation to each other:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37533131/R3_PicStyleCompare_02_2012.psd
Neutral, Standard, Portrait, Landscape, R3_0701L, and R3_m2007L

I'll have to find easier names to remember for these as I get closer to something that I like. Anyways, this one fixes a few things I didn't like about the original R303, making it more useful in a variety of situations.

At -4 contrast it is flatter than Neutral at -4 contrast. ( recommend desaturating in post, rather than in-camera)


At -1 contrast it is a very "unbaked" natural looking contrast.

R3 series is pretty close to where I am happy with it. One of the reasons it is so difficult to get a perfect picture style is a combination of limitations with the end codec and the PSE. This is going to be an issue with the 2012 dslr's as well, unless sony and panasonic surprise us (which I doubt they will). For now, it is looking like Canon and Nikon will be continuing the compressed codecs. So, picture styles will still come into play.
 
Last edited:
JoeJITSU said:
Which is better and why? I will be using these for mostly weddings, thanks
Click to expand...

If you know how to use the LUT as a basepoint for grading, cinestyle is better than marvels 3.4 -especially so when you have lots of low light scenes.

Heres a test I did in VERY low light, though I was actually testing for the ML FPS override, at 1:40 is a comparison between NEUTRAL , CINESTYLE & MARVELS 3.4 .
I think it will give you an idea how much lift the cinestyle gives in the dark areas compared to the other 2.

[size=+2]5D Magic Lantern LOW FPS Test # 1[/size]

I also have some color charts that i did between the 3 settings which I might put up soon which I found that the noise issue in the blacks is not bad in the cinestyle profile. Just expose your highlights carefully. -if noise patterns do appear, this is usually in the very dark portions that would normally be crushed already under different profiles so, just adjust the shadows to taste.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the Input guys.
Have anyone of you thought about if you had to do a Same Day Edit for lets say a wedding just to throw it on "standard"?
The color correction for me is really time consuming and I use Marvels 3.4 and just like someone on here, I have to check almost clip by clip just because of lighting situations.
 
--pimp on--
If you're editing on Premiere, Flaat_2 is perfect, just add a luminance curve and you're done (for a basic correction)
--pimp off--

if your software doesn't offer luminance curves, you can use an RGB curve and then desaturate, but it starts to get a bit more time consuming
consider portrait with contrast -2 or -3, saturation -2, sharpness 2
 
JoeJITSU said:
Thanks for the Input guys.
Have anyone of you thought about if you had to do a Same Day Edit for lets say a wedding just to throw it on "standard"?
The color correction for me is really time consuming and I use Marvels 3.4 and just like someone on here, I have to check almost clip by clip just because of lighting situations.
Click to expand...

If you don't plan on shooting with post color correction, try playing around with your contrast levels based on lighting situations. I tend to not do much grading or corrections, so I like to use -1 to -3 contrast on Neutral or R3_0701.

NormanBates' flats look interesting. I am going to try those out in a few minutes.
 
so if i'm using some basic color correction software...
and my shoot is using natural lighting for a night exterior, would my best bet be to use something very flat to bring out the shadow detail, or since i'm not going to be getting any highlights can i go for something a little more contrasty and expose for the shadows as much as possible?
 
sonofaresiii said:
so if i'm using some basic color correction software...
and my shoot is using natural lighting for a night exterior, would my best bet be to use something very flat to bring out the shadow detail, or since i'm not going to be getting any highlights can i go for something a little more contrasty and expose for the shadows as much as possible?
Click to expand...

Really depends on how contrasty the light is. In general I would up the ISO and keep more contrast (not flat), but if I absolutely need to reduce heavy contrast in a scene, then I would go with cinestyle or something like that.

It is better to think in terms of contrast, since flat profiles do not offer much if any extra dynamic range. They just get a more pleasing look in high contrast scenes.
 
A brief contrast test between a few pic styles. The test is focusing on shadow detail vs shadow noise, and in part, how much highlights react. iso800:
https://vimeo.com/36627554

Picture styles tested:
-Standard
-R3_m2006L (contrast -1 and -4)
-Neutral 0,-4,-2,0
-Flaat 02
-Cinestyle

This is primarily a noise test. No Marvel in this test.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top