New Technicolor CineStyle - A Quick Test

Richard Allen Crook

Richard Allen Crook

Well-known member
Hey Gang,

I shot a quick comparison test of this to other profiles. Tested the limits to see if the profile is better than other "flat" profiles. This was a quick test...not intended to be scientific or anything. I just hope it's of some use to others as it was to me.

http://crookedpathfilms.com/blog/201...irst-thoughts/


I'm thinking a flat profile of any kind isn't a good idea in this 4:2:0 8 bit colorspace, just gets noicsy and enhances artifacts. What does everyone else think?

Best,
Rich
 
Poor test imo, this honestly does not show anything. I would like to see something more interesting. If you blink real fast everything looks the same and only a pixel peeper would be able to tell the difference out of the examples you have posted.
 
Texas Jones said:
Hey Gang,

I shot a quick comparison test of this to other profiles. Tested the limits to see if the profile is better than other "flat" profiles. This was a quick test...not intended to be scientific or anything. I just hope it's of some use to others as it was to me.

http://crookedpathfilms.com/blog/201...irst-thoughts/


I'm thinking a flat profile of any kind isn't a good idea in this 4:2:0 8 bit colorspace, just gets noicsy and enhances artifacts. What does everyone else think?

Best,
Rich
Click to expand...

Thanks for those quick tests, glad to see something like that showing the various latitude differences before I load it myself. It seems the cinestyle curvature is more pleasant and gradual.
Its apparent in the shadow area.

edit; add;
However on your zoomed in to the pillar shot the knee seemed close and similar, however I understand that the test is not"scientific" as you say and using the light from the window as illumination, it could be subject to subtle changes as you change settings in camera thus making it a bit less reliable than having a controlled light source.

Again thanks for that.
 
Last edited:
Finaly a "flat profile" that keeps the color and brings up even the deep blacks which you can't when you create a custom picture profile with the picture style editor (i've spent hundreds of hours with that prog and without manually tweaking the pf2's content it's impossible). So in a way it's the best flat style out there.

I'm just a bit sad that I can't build my own picture profile derived from it (like you can do derived from neutral, standard and every other standard pic.profile). I really love to tweak the colors to what I really like.
 
I'll have to check it out, but so far my experience is that I don't want to use any more dynamic range than I need, i.e. if you know how the final image will look like, it's a good idea to get your shot close to that in camera (leaving some room for post, but not too much)

this is definitely going to be installed to my camera (it looks like it works better than previous flat profiles), but it will only get used when I need the extended DR
 
Last edited:
ok, I ran some tests, applying different picture styles over a RAW photo

http://www.similaar.com/foto/picturestyles/picturestyles.html

my conclusion: the Technicolor CineStyle profile is really powerful: it can bring up shadows that even the aggressive curves on "extra flat" Portrait and Neutral profiles are crushing to black. So, if you need extended dynamic range, Technicolor CineStyle is an amazing tool. Still, whenever I don't need that extra dynamic range, I'll use my flattened Portrait picture styles: I feel Neutral and Technicolor deliver clay-like grey people, and make recovering nice skin tones much more difficult (sure, lots of people manage to get their nice colors back in post, but my abilities seem to be really limited in this respect).
 
and just a few hours later, with a lot more knowledge in my head, I've changed my mind completely: this Technicolor thing is AMAZING

not because it gets more DR than every other picture style out there, which may be close but probably is not the case, but because it comes with a LUT file that MAKES WONDERS

see my post above, where I say "I feel Neutral and Technicolor deliver clay-like grey people, and make recovering nice skin tones much more difficult (sure, lots of people manage to get their nice colors back in post, but my abilities seem to be really limited in this respect)"
not the case anymore: I downloaded the free Red Giant Magic Bullet LUT Buddy, used it to apply the Technicolor LUT to the image, and voila, beautiful skin tones recovered!

so now I can get a lot of DR on my original footage (that I can use by applying my color grading effects below the LUT layer), and can easily get nice skin tones in my final images (even with my very limited skills): IT'S NEARLY PERFECT (the only drawback being that the codec's 8 bits of color now have to be spread over a larger dynamic range, so there will be more noise in the final images, and codec and sharpening artifacts will be more visible)

see the additional row in my table of results:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/picturestyles/picturestyles.html
 
NormanBates said:
and just a few hours later, with a lot more knowledge in my head, I've changed my mind completely: this Technicolor thing is AMAZING

not because it gets more DR than every other picture style out there, which may be close but probably is not the case, but because it comes with a LUT file that MAKES WONDERS

see my post above, where I say "I feel Neutral and Technicolor deliver clay-like grey people, and make recovering nice skin tones much more difficult (sure, lots of people manage to get their nice colors back in post, but my abilities seem to be really limited in this respect)"
not the case anymore: I downloaded the free Red Giant Magic Bullet LUT Buddy, used it to apply the Technicolor LUT to the image, and voila, beautiful skin tones recovered!

so now I can get a lot of DR on my original footage (that I can use by applying my color grading effects below the LUT layer), and can easily get nice skin tones in my final images (even with my very limited skills): IT'S NEARLY PERFECT (the only drawback being that the codec's 8 bits of color now have to be spread over a larger dynamic range, so there will be more noise in the final images, and codec and sharpening artifacts will be more visible)

see the additional row in my table of results:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/picturestyles/picturestyles.html
Click to expand...

Glad to see it's making more sense for you. It looks great after applying the LUT because this picture style is not supposed to look good prior to grading. It's supposed to give you better latitude for a better image after grading...compared to post-graded footage shot on other profiles. That's what it's all about. The LUT is usually used on set to run through their DP lights software to give a preview on set of how the footage could be graded so people aren't looking at a flat image. I don't think the LUT is designed for a grading "look" to be added to the footage in post, though it can certainly be used like that.

The question for people trying the profile out is...how does this profile grade in post compare to other picture styles? And does this work better for them? Comparing this right out of the camera is not a good way to judge. Go out and shoot a bunch of footage, one version with other profiles and another version with the CineStyle, apply grading to each profiles used via your color correction software, and decide for yourself if the CineStyle is a good choice.

I think some folks may not understand that this profile is for people who color grade their footage. It's not supposed to be used for looks "in camera." (I'm not meaning you specifically Norman...just in general from other forums and stuff) :)
 
I know it's not supposed to look good prior to grading (just like any other ultra flat picture style out there)

what I said is that, even if I always grade my footage, if I start with images that are too far way from the final result (read: recorded with any ultra flat picture profile that delivers clay-looking people in camera), given my very limited abilities, I just cannot recover nice skin tones through grading, no matter how hard I try; unless someone gives me the magic formula in form of a LUT table, with which can I can easily get my images to look "good" in one simple step, and then start tweaking from there :)

the new thing for this Technicolor CineStyle profile is that
a) it's really efficient at extending the DR
b) it comes with a LUT, so even I can use it and get nice final images
 
Last edited:
Norman how do you apply the LUT to your footage - is this done somehow on the timeline of your NLE, or do you convert your footage first using a utility in which the LUT is involved?
Cheers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top