Rethinking my entire process.....

MattC

MattC

Veteran
Up until now, I've been experimenting with various "looks" from my camera. Normally I wouldn't think to achieve a look in camera or with external filters, but that seems to be the prevailing wisdom on this site.

I've been having a difficult time achieving a particular look for a romantic candlelit diner. I shot it with an XL2: 16:9, -3 gain, 24p advanced pull down, some menu tweaks but nothing drastic and a Black ProMist 1/2. The scene was well lit and (since this is just test footage) I shot it at a variety of stops with 4.4 giving me the look I was after (via the viewfinder). I have my zebra bars set at 90 and my whites were just peaking in the highlights. It looked perfect on the camera, but I don't have a production monitor yet (it's on its way). I then captured that into FCP using the DV-NTSC 24p (23.98) Advanced Pulldown Removal preset. I worked with the footage in FCPHD (did some tweaking with color correction and Nattress filters). The footage lookes F'ING GREAT in the NLE - just how I want it to, there is no noise, it's crystal clear (but not too sharp with the filter), and all the coloring is how it should be (slightly warm), in effect very filmic. While I used a lot of lights, it is a fairly dark scene (candlelit dinner, Chiaroscuro, think The Godfather).

I then export this file via compressor using the mpeg-2 high 60 minute high quality encoding. I then bring the dvd over to my dvd player and tv and it looks like crap. This has me asking what am I doing wrong. Again, up until I put it on the TV it looks fantastic.

First thought, my camera and computer lie to me and I need a properly calibrated monitor. Fine, I knew this, which is why I bought one - but it doesn't seem like it should be THIS far off. I mean to go from great to a little less than great I could understand, but from perfect to crap? That I don't get.

Second thought, perhaps I shouldn't be reducing light via F-stop? I mean I lit the scene with the contrasts that I want, however over all it is brighter than what I want. I then reduce the overall amount of light by adjusting the iris. This is how I would do it with an SLR camera, am I doing it wrong for video?

Third thought, go back to my original concept and shoot very flat. In this way I would adjust everything for the best "flat" look. Open Iris, no cinegamma or cinematrix, no external filters and flat color. Then do everything else in post (either Nattress or Magic Bullet).

Guys, I'm really about ready to slit my wrists in a warm bath over this so any comments or suggestions you might have would be greatly appreciated. Tonight I'll try to post some screen grabs and maybe a short clip.

Matt
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

I am trying to follow and would suggest not only a properly calibrated NTSC Monitor but using your Video Scopes as well. Does the DVD look good onthe monitor or does this happen on the transfer? Or are we saying "ONLY ON TV it looks horrid?"

And can you describe how it looks on TV (Other than crap?). IS it too bright, too dark, what? Is your TV calibrated properly as well?
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

Matt, would describe what Crap looks like. If you descibe the change from your monitor to TV maybe someone can give you helpful advice.

Maybe your DVD compression might be off.
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

Chroma and Luma are WAY off, colors are oversaturated, image is much darker, far too much red...

I think it's the television (I haven't bought a new TV since around 1980) I've been working on calibrating it (as best as I can until the monitor arrives - scheduled deliver is the 23rd).

Also it just looks cleaner in the editor. I don't really know the proper way to describe it. There isn't "noise" like video noise or gain, the image just looks sort of dirty. I'm doing some more tests tonight (and will continue after my Battlestar Galactica break).

I think part of the problem was my process... I adjusted the camera settings so that the image looked just like I wanted it to through the viewfinder. To do so, I made a lot of minor adjustments to the gamma curve, the master pedestal, the color gain, etc... These changes looked good in the viewfinder and looked pretty much the same in the editor - very nice. But on the television it looked like crap. Now since I've tweaked the tv it does look better, but I'm still not there yet. I settled on a "film look" program (Digital Film Tools), or group of programs so this weekend I'm going to work with the camera, the program/my editor and the television (although I'm sure I'll have to make adjustments once I get my monitor). I'm hoping that once I get through this process I will arrive at a fairly flat setting for my camera which will allow for the maximum flexibility in post. I know I need to use my waveform monitor and vector scope, but to be honest I don't really know how, so lots of reading this weekend as well.

I'm not really going to slit my wrists btw, and hope I didn't come off too neurotic, but this has really thrown me for a loop. But I'm going through all the steps I can think of to troubleshoot it. I really appreciate your help guys. Even if you can't offer tangible suggestions, just knowing that there are folks out there who care enough to respond to my ramblings make this process a little easier.

Thanks again,

Matt
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

Ok as to the dirty comment. I have shadows on a wall. In the editor it looks like nice like it should, shadows on a wall. On the television it looks like a dirty wall. Does that make any sense?

Matt
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

If you are serious you have a 25 year old TV Matt you can't count what you see on that thing. Can you watch on another TV?
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

I agree with dakota, you need to visit a friend with a newer TV, say just 10 years old ;)... better yet take it to a video store and play there. I use to take material into Circut City and try my material on all different setups to see what it looked like.. the video guys liked helping me out. Also, the view finder isn't close... don't rely on it. A calibrated monitor is mandatory...DV Rack is your best bet...after you get a new TV. TVs get old and the screen shrinks inside, color guns do wierd stuff, time for it to become a prop in your movie where you shoot it with a shotgun...i bet that's your 1st & biggest problem.
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

Yeah, you know once the sucker warms up it really isn't that bad (or maybe it is and I'm just used to it after 25 years - has it really been that long??????). It seems to play nice so I never bothered to get another one. I mean, none of my DVDs look bad. Although, since I've been calibrating it to the best of my ability the picture is better. Hopefully this Sony production monitor will be the ticket. No DVRack for me, I'm a mac guy although I do have an old PC desktop I could run it on I suppose. I'm loading Final Cut Pro into my laptop and will try to use the scopes on that once I figure out what the hell I'm doing with them...
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

LOL

I'd definately cruise to a friends pad and check it out; I always try and shoot as clean as possible in camera and do all 'tweaking' in post; just a thought
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

Stop dissin my tv...

Ok so seriously, do you shoot with cinegamma and cinematrix and all other menu tweaks, or do you shoot "flat"?
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

I shoot default 24pa with some minor tweaking of Detail and a few other settings. I can give yoi ua break down if you want; let me know. But the DVX settings will be much different than the XL2. I always felt the XL2 had an inherent 'pasty' image at default (from what I have seen) whilst the DVX is more oversaturated and contrasty.
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

See and I set the XL2 up to be like the DVX oversaturated, contrasty and, imo, warm. But I spent an hour on the phone with a guy over at Digital Film Tools (GREAT company by the way, I mean this guy, one of the honchos, really took the time to go over every step of what I was doing and made recommendations the whole way, plus offered to help on my project). He said that if you're using any kind of color grading software, his, Magic Bullet, Nattress, whatever, that you should shoot as flat as possible, meaning a very straight "curve" or non curve if you will. The colors should be true but not what you'd want to see in the end. Then everything else should be done in post. He did say to turn down the sharpening and turn up the coring a bit, but that was about it.

Matt
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

That's what I would do then! I'm not set up to get my 'look' in camera; everythign I do I get in post. The only settings I have tweaked are detail, master ped (Setup) and a few other minor ones. Hang on and Ill post some TRUE -vs- CORRECTED
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

Take a look at some 35mm productions before CC and they look like dull, crappy garbage. I would tend to agree the flat tone strategy and post enhancement is a good approach because it gives you a ton of flexibility and more tools ...especially time to think, and a better screen to see with. This what light meters do for film productions, it lets them shoot a constant 18% grey and tweak in post, therefore in each shot greys and all other tones will be consistent. We all know the torture of each shot too light, too dark, too this, too that... it'd be nice to find that constant place. Some DPs set lights etc. for f4 and try to maintain it throughout.
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

10s is so right on; I remember seeing TRUE Master and Commander fooatge and it was horrid; very blase and I swear could have came from the DVX (okay, I'm exageratting) but the CC footage?  Damn smokin.

cc7cz.jpg


I just realized that says 'Propery'. :D (Tired :-/ )
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

YES, very nice....it's like blk & wht vs. Color.
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

It's amazing what can be done with a tweak!

Don't mean "fix it in post" ... It's just nice to see what can be done....
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

Alot of my 'Post' depends on a true image. I think I could go mad trying to achieve an 'In-camera' look what with constant lighting set-ups and exposure changes. I'm always going for a high contrast/over-saturated look as it is and could you imagine trying to get that look in camera everytime you do a set-up?
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

[quote author=John Hudson link=board=news;num=1108762430;start=0#14 date=02/18/05 at 22:57:30]10s is so right on; I remember seeing TRUE Master and Commander fooatge and it was horrid; very blase and I swear could have came from the DVX (okay, I'm exageratting) but the CC footage?  Damn smokin.
I just realized that says 'Propery'.   :D  (Tired  :-/ )[/quote]

When you have a 35mm image to start from, you have a lot more luma and color information to do a great telecine job (if you know how to shoot it flat). That technique is great, shotting it flat, even though some people prefer to do their effects in camera (old school). But the fact is that when you start with a compressed DV footage, well, you really don't have much, and every tweak you do that is not very minor, can ruin the quality of the signal. So in camera effects could be cleaner than post, regarding the DVX. I don't know how much after the compression the effects are handeled, but you get the picture... (no pun intended)

While I think matt's issue is not so hard at all. Make a DV tape out of your NLE WITH colorbars and the scene you like, play it on your TV through your XL2 and adjust it by the colorbars. Does the problem persist? That will isolate if it's a problem with your signal or your tv or if its a problem with your DVD compression.
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

Thanks Taubkin, I'm dong that now.

John,
Then I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say that the XL2 has an inherent pasty image?  (Obviously I'm not trying to get into a this vs that) Perhaps it is just how we each perceive things.  I would consider the XL2's images to be very accurate as far as color rendition goes and that to me is part of its flat look.  It is a de-saturated look however, maybe that's what you mean, the colors have no punch.  You know the ironic part about all this was I bought that camera specifically because of that, as well as a number of other things, and I've spent the past couple of months figuring out how to get it to look like the DVX as well as a number of other looks.  I don't mean to brag (yes I do) but I've got some really beautiful "looks" coming out of this camera.  Now I'm going back to flat!

Thanks guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top