All my clips with Nuetral, Marvel Cine 3.3 and Technicolor CineStyle are about 41-44 mbps on a T3i. All my files that long are about 500mb. I'd be curious what you were doing before that gave smaller file sizes.
Cheers,
Pete
New Technicolor Profile Is Amazing
- Thread starter tstreetfilms
- Start date
Cheers,
Pete
So 16-255 is more than 0-255 wow
Darren Levine
Veteran
that's exactly what i said, the max bitrate is the same, but if you have less detail in a shot then it won't record detail that isn't there AKA black clipped/white clipped parts
I don't think that's how it works.
The other poster was talking about more detail within the shots, as in details that normally would have been crushed to black are coming through and causing the average bit-rate to increase.
I don't know if that happens or not, as I haven't tried the new CineStyle yet, but that's what he's talking about.
Are you applying the LUT to your footage?
yes and as you see its pushing bright areas up causing blownout whites and i dont like that,but this is basically the way to get contrast,i just dont like that blacks are pushed so high.I dont care that much about dark areas but i hate blown out white ,this cinestyle has nice roloff for overexposed stuff but blacks starting from 16 is waste of space,i dont see ny reason to leave it like that ,compression artifacts are still there in dark shadows if you apply lookup table curve.
I tried to edit this pic style but i cant even load it,its disabled for editing.
I tried to edit this pic style but i cant even load it,its disabled for editing.
Snapper123
Well-known member
I'd personally love to see a truly good example of what this picture style can bring with good post-editing, so far, all we've seen is the LUT (which makes the footage identical to other styles) and a couple horrid adjustments here and there. Sure, this picture style could be useful for monitors or whatever people would be using it for, but before everyone explodes all up about recovering detail, I think a good example of this should be posted. So far, I haven't seen an example of where this profile, in the end, retains a pixel of information more than any other. The most it seems to do is hold up skin tones a tinge better.
Personally, and this is a topic I'd like to discuss somewhere, but I believe that certain picture styles are used for certain scenarios. For instance, I've noticed that CineStyle actually looks more realistic in skin tones and color when the image that it's recording is 2 stops underexposed, as though the picture style was made for a scenario like that. However, expose the scene properly or somewhat overexposed, and the picture style makes things look like a mutant Superflat. Basically, it seems to look OK indoors with bad light equality, but take it outside, it looks horrible. Same with contrasty, punchy styles like Kodak Portra, you wouldn't think of using them indoors, but using it outside, it makes thinks look brilliant. I'd like to know what are the optimal conditions for taking advantage of CineStyle.
Because basically, if you know that you're only shooting outside, then you tend to auto-matically use picture styles that simply give you the look your going for. With outdoor conditions, that's generally possible. But when you have a production that mixes indoor with outdoor, you have to find a style that makes indoor conditions look equal and detailed (as of right now, this only seems to be CineStyle), and with that, you then have to find a style for your outdoor look that matches with the indoor look without looking flatter. And then you have to worry about how to make the indoor footage look most realistic, and how to make sure the outdoor also matches. It's a never ending puzzle!
Personally, and this is a topic I'd like to discuss somewhere, but I believe that certain picture styles are used for certain scenarios. For instance, I've noticed that CineStyle actually looks more realistic in skin tones and color when the image that it's recording is 2 stops underexposed, as though the picture style was made for a scenario like that. However, expose the scene properly or somewhat overexposed, and the picture style makes things look like a mutant Superflat. Basically, it seems to look OK indoors with bad light equality, but take it outside, it looks horrible. Same with contrasty, punchy styles like Kodak Portra, you wouldn't think of using them indoors, but using it outside, it makes thinks look brilliant. I'd like to know what are the optimal conditions for taking advantage of CineStyle.
Because basically, if you know that you're only shooting outside, then you tend to auto-matically use picture styles that simply give you the look your going for. With outdoor conditions, that's generally possible. But when you have a production that mixes indoor with outdoor, you have to find a style that makes indoor conditions look equal and detailed (as of right now, this only seems to be CineStyle), and with that, you then have to find a style for your outdoor look that matches with the indoor look without looking flatter. And then you have to worry about how to make the indoor footage look most realistic, and how to make sure the outdoor also matches. It's a never ending puzzle!
Last edited:
robotsound
Well-known member
Here is a half sized screen capture taken from video footage. I didn't concoct an elaborate test, it's just a picture of a dog.
Please note: I am not claiming this is the most amazing picture in the world. I simply shot this when I walked outside of my house to mess around with the CineStyle picture style in outdoor light. If you don't like it, you can have your money back.
Before: CineStyle, sharpness 0, contrast -4, saturation -2
After: Same picture, but run through a curve in After Effects that closely approximates the Technicolor LUT.
I noticed another interesting thing when I was playing around with it. If you set contrast and saturation to 0, CineStyle seems to have the most natural look out of any of the picture styles on the camera. With the contrast at -4 and saturation at -2 it looks very flat of course. However, when I put the viewfinder up to my right eye and looked out of my left eye, CineStyle at 0 was the closest match to what I was actually seeing with my eyes (at least in indoor light at night, which is the only place I have tried it so far).
Please note: I am not claiming this is the most amazing picture in the world. I simply shot this when I walked outside of my house to mess around with the CineStyle picture style in outdoor light. If you don't like it, you can have your money back.
Before: CineStyle, sharpness 0, contrast -4, saturation -2
After: Same picture, but run through a curve in After Effects that closely approximates the Technicolor LUT.
I noticed another interesting thing when I was playing around with it. If you set contrast and saturation to 0, CineStyle seems to have the most natural look out of any of the picture styles on the camera. With the contrast at -4 and saturation at -2 it looks very flat of course. However, when I put the viewfinder up to my right eye and looked out of my left eye, CineStyle at 0 was the closest match to what I was actually seeing with my eyes (at least in indoor light at night, which is the only place I have tried it so far).
robotsound
Well-known member
Also, here is a more detailed test that someone did with CineStyle vs. Neutral. They didn't set Neutral quite how I would have, but the results are very similar to the kinds of things I've been seeing in my tests with Neutral dialed down to contrast -4 and saturation -2 as well.
http://www.needcreative.net/main/20...colors-new-cinestyle-picture-style-for-c.html
http://www.needcreative.net/main/20...colors-new-cinestyle-picture-style-for-c.html
Snapper123
Well-known member
Like, a big thing with digital productions, see, if everything on your set isn't just the most perfectly calculated thing out there (or even if you're not using any real equipment at all), you are most likely going to get a blown out highlight and a sea of black somewhere in the shot. It's going to happen on Standard, it's going to happen on CineStyle. However, the trick that the pros sometimes use, is that when dealing with this digital loss of information (and potentially overblown/abyss areas to boot), what you do for the final product is you chop off the black end of the spectrum, chop off the white end, and everything doesn't look so glaring. You can do this if you have a contrast product, or you can do it if you have a flat product, it makes no difference.
However, the thing with CineStyle, is that it already chops off the blacks in-camera, so if you re-add contrast for realism, you have to chop even more blacks out of the final product, and you still have to chop some white spectrums out to turn your whites into like a grey or cream color, and that means that if you restore that realism and get that picture back to a Neutral/Standard look, you're potentially going to loose more information than you would just shooting Neutral or Standard or whatnot once you get the glaring highlights and abyss blacks re-accounted for.
A good example of this is with the dog photo a few posts up from this:
In the first picture with CineStyle, the top of the dog's head is blown out, but since the Cinestyle is seemingly toning down the white color, this isn't at all noticeable and the picture looks very even. With the LUT applied, the top of the dog's head suddenly becomes glaring and the info loss is much more visible. To combat this, you'd need to chop a bit of white off the white end range of the photo's spectrum, and while it would make the dog's head look smoother, more fur texture would begin to fade, and who knows what this would also do to the life-like contrast of the full photo. (Chopping a white end off may bring the entire photo back down to flat look, I don't really know.)
To me, it's just about getting a realistic product in the end and well, I think it's just an epidemic in general that you can count on your hand how many DSLR productions have done this.
However, the thing with CineStyle, is that it already chops off the blacks in-camera, so if you re-add contrast for realism, you have to chop even more blacks out of the final product, and you still have to chop some white spectrums out to turn your whites into like a grey or cream color, and that means that if you restore that realism and get that picture back to a Neutral/Standard look, you're potentially going to loose more information than you would just shooting Neutral or Standard or whatnot once you get the glaring highlights and abyss blacks re-accounted for.
A good example of this is with the dog photo a few posts up from this:
In the first picture with CineStyle, the top of the dog's head is blown out, but since the Cinestyle is seemingly toning down the white color, this isn't at all noticeable and the picture looks very even. With the LUT applied, the top of the dog's head suddenly becomes glaring and the info loss is much more visible. To combat this, you'd need to chop a bit of white off the white end range of the photo's spectrum, and while it would make the dog's head look smoother, more fur texture would begin to fade, and who knows what this would also do to the life-like contrast of the full photo. (Chopping a white end off may bring the entire photo back down to flat look, I don't really know.)
To me, it's just about getting a realistic product in the end and well, I think it's just an epidemic in general that you can count on your hand how many DSLR productions have done this.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
MY HONEYMOON WITH THE TECHNICOLOR PICTURE STYLE IS OVER
I ran some more tests, and found the following: even with Technicolor CineStyle in my bag of tricks, I get my best results if I try to get the footage in-camera as close as possible to what I want my final images to look like
* if I know my final footage is going to look like "neutral with contrast=-2", I get a lot less noise and in general a better image if I shoot like that in the first place, instead of shooting with Technicolor CineStyle and then applying the LUT (or equivalent curve); but at least on this case it's just a matter of applying a LUT (or equivalent curve)
* if my final images are going to have less contrast than that, I'll have to fight with the color correction tools in post, and it's not an easy task: it's much easier than it was with previous ultra flat picture styles, but I still struggle to get nice images and sometimes still end up with greenish/greyish skin tones or having to make compromises in order to avoid that; the LUT (or equivalent curve) is a great starting point, and makes the task much easier, but it's still not foolproof: it requires skills that I just don't have (yet) (hopefully)
* if my final images are going to have more contrast than that, all from the previous point applies, plus noise gets really, really bad
I always leave some room to be able to tweak the final images in post, but leaving too much and then having to push and pull a whole lot creates an awful lot of noise in my final images (my guess: codec artifacts being blown up); the more I mess with my footage, trying to take it to a place where it doesn't want to go, the nastier it looks
I totally understand this are just reflections of my lack of skills with the color correction tools, but that's me and I can't change that but very, very slowly
smarter and more skilled people won't have this problem; and for people with different workflows, it will be the everyday option (people working with clients, or more in general when the people shooting on set don't have full control over how the final images will look like)
even with all this, I'm not completely back to square one: now I have an "extended DR" mode in my camera, which I can use if needed; my most common picture style, though, will go on being "portrait with contrast=-4"; for some more DR, I'll go on using "portrait with contrast=-4 and curve pushing shadows upwards"; and then when I need as much DR as I can get, I'll go for CineStyle
I ran some more tests, and found the following: even with Technicolor CineStyle in my bag of tricks, I get my best results if I try to get the footage in-camera as close as possible to what I want my final images to look like
* if I know my final footage is going to look like "neutral with contrast=-2", I get a lot less noise and in general a better image if I shoot like that in the first place, instead of shooting with Technicolor CineStyle and then applying the LUT (or equivalent curve); but at least on this case it's just a matter of applying a LUT (or equivalent curve)
* if my final images are going to have less contrast than that, I'll have to fight with the color correction tools in post, and it's not an easy task: it's much easier than it was with previous ultra flat picture styles, but I still struggle to get nice images and sometimes still end up with greenish/greyish skin tones or having to make compromises in order to avoid that; the LUT (or equivalent curve) is a great starting point, and makes the task much easier, but it's still not foolproof: it requires skills that I just don't have (yet) (hopefully)
* if my final images are going to have more contrast than that, all from the previous point applies, plus noise gets really, really bad
I always leave some room to be able to tweak the final images in post, but leaving too much and then having to push and pull a whole lot creates an awful lot of noise in my final images (my guess: codec artifacts being blown up); the more I mess with my footage, trying to take it to a place where it doesn't want to go, the nastier it looks
I totally understand this are just reflections of my lack of skills with the color correction tools, but that's me and I can't change that but very, very slowly
smarter and more skilled people won't have this problem; and for people with different workflows, it will be the everyday option (people working with clients, or more in general when the people shooting on set don't have full control over how the final images will look like)
even with all this, I'm not completely back to square one: now I have an "extended DR" mode in my camera, which I can use if needed; my most common picture style, though, will go on being "portrait with contrast=-4"; for some more DR, I'll go on using "portrait with contrast=-4 and curve pushing shadows upwards"; and then when I need as much DR as I can get, I'll go for CineStyle
Last edited:
ROCKMORE
Veteran
I like your statement, but wouldn't count it out completely. It will be useful in some situations although not in all. I'm curious how it will (may) improve performance in very low light situations. If it can successfully turn 3200 into 1600 we have something, but that has yet to be proven.
Right there with you, and I've thought along those lines pretty much since Phil came out with his flat shooting style. I agree with taking down sharpness and contrast, but it seems to me if you can get an image in camera that pleases you (and on my movies, I'm the DP and director, so I know what I want), why not shoot that? I could understand using the superflat techniques if you could output the signal to a recorder, but when it's 4:0:0 in-camera recording, the benefit seems minimal - even if you're a great colorist.
And let's admit it - how many of us are? I spend all my time with either the camera/learning more about shooting, or with the actors. Add to that rendering times - a big deal if you're doing a feature on a budget - and it's use is, at best, scene specific.
I do think it's a cool tool for sunny days, or whacky indoor lighting, but otherwise I doubt I'd use it.
Virtually all my work is outdoors and this picture style has been incredibly useful. The contrast levels from these cams in full sunlight is almost unmanagable. I'll have to be very careful with it as light levels diminish though. Noise levels go up very quickly as light decreases, but this is a great tool to prevent massive over contrast I've been getting in most daylight situations.
As a side note I've found the whole excercise in learning about flat picture styles to be incredibly informative. Finally understanding log vs linear correction has opened my eyes to a whole new relm of possibilities. My research and testing with the CineStyle s-curve LUT and non-linear color curves has been invaluable. My ability to correct both stills and video has improved remarkably now that I actually "get" it
Cheers,
Pete
As a side note I've found the whole excercise in learning about flat picture styles to be incredibly informative. Finally understanding log vs linear correction has opened my eyes to a whole new relm of possibilities. My research and testing with the CineStyle s-curve LUT and non-linear color curves has been invaluable. My ability to correct both stills and video has improved remarkably now that I actually "get" it
Cheers,
Pete
TeresofBlood
Active member
Lowlight performance is drastically changed at high ISOs. From a very superficial test, using the CineStyle, I observed the image was much brighter, but also had a much higher level of digital noise.
ROCKMORE
Veteran
How would you rate the CineStyle noise level compared to higher ISO setting. Is it worth the 1 stop advantage?
Still nothing beats Super Speed lenses.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
I haven't tried this with CineStyle, but my observation is that the most important parameter for determining the amount of noise in your footage is how much light hits the sensor; ISO, picture style, and other things like that, may change noise in the image you record, but it comes back when you restore the final look you want in post (and maybe with a vengeance, since tweaking the image too much also tends to add noise to the final images)