Rethinking my entire process.....

Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

[quote author=waltind link=board=news;num=1108762430;start=30#38 date=02/20/05 at 09:27:15]Question for you all - if it is better to shoot it straight and then apply the look (Color correct) in post, then what is the benifit of using a DVX other then frame rate? (I'm in the process of getting new cameras, I currently have XL1s' - and want to go for the DVX) If your shooting everything straight, then why should I bother with new cameras? Wouldn't it just be cheaper to get magic bullet? Thanks for your input.[/quote]

The number one bene to me in the DVX is the 24p (I'd get the XL2 if I didn't have the DVX). The DVX also hseems to have this wonderful gamma curve (Cinegamma) built in to the camera without major tweaking. Sure, you can get Magic Bullet (which any NLE can do really in terms of CC) but if your talking about converting footage to 24p from 60i you're going to lose almost half your resolution in the process. IF 24p is your thing and you are serious about it get qa camera with true native progressive.
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

[quote author=MattC link=board=news;num=1108762430;start=30#37 date=02/20/05 at 07:26:49]I know you didn't say to open the iris up completely, I'm just telling you how I did it last time.  I'm redoing the test footage today and I'll then post.  I guess I didn't realize that by stopping the iris down to 4.4 I would be underexposing.  I mean what's the difference between underexposing and having a dark image Taubkin?  [/quote]

That's good question.  I have my DVX set to -3 IRIS for exposure, as reccomended by the 'manual' for the best 'filmlook' and it works for me.  Being set at this still requires me EXPOSE properly; watching for ZEBRAS or areas of complete black.

The problem with always IRIS'ing down is that you could find your self running incircles; need more light here now that I IRIS'd down on the hotspot, etc etc
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

?? John I'm confused (remember we have different cameras). I have a gain setting which can be set to -3 and I've done that because purportedly I'll have less noise in a dark image. For the Iris I just have regular settings... Oh, but as I type this I realize I have an additional Exposure control, let me see what I can adjust that too, hang on...

...Ok, I'm back. The most I could set that to is + or -2. So are you saying that you set yours to -3 and then use the auto exposure (auto iris)?
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

Mine is set to -3; meaning it 'Auto Underexposes' the IRIS. Not sure how many stops exactly it is. I never use GAIN keeping the DVX at LOW Gain setting as it induces noise.

I don't shoot with AUTO Exposure on; but just press AUTO IRIS to check the camera reccomendation and then switch off to MANUAL' this while adjusting for ZEBRAS, etc
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

Dude, I'm so excited, I think I have it.... Just maybe.... Check back in lighting later.... :D
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

[quote author=MattC link=board=news;num=1108762430;start=30#37 date=02/20/05 at 07:26:49] I mean what's the difference between underexposing and having a dark image Taubkin?  [/quote]

None. But the fact is that you can have a dark image without underexposing. The thing is making the contrast fall inside your range. A dark image, such as a night shot, don't need to be underexposed, only to have dark regions in a normally exposed image. The same as a day image that is normally exposed but has much more highlights. That's why it's possible to shoot day for night.

If someone's skin reads 65% on a waveform in a day scene, it does not mean that it will read less than that in a night scene. If your guy's head were higher, the impression of a dark, night shot, chiaroescuro, would not be compromised, but our attention would be drawn to your character much easily, and we would make the image much sooner. I take underexposing as having all your image darker than it should, while a dark image is just an image with a lot of dark areas. I'm not very clear in english, sorry about that, it is my second langauge, afterall... ;)
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

Taubkin, that was explained perfectly - your english is better than my Portuguese - hell, it's probably better than MY English... :P
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

[quote author=MattC link=board=news;num=1108762430;start=45#46 date=02/20/05 at 19:04:43]Taubkin, that was explained perfectly - your english is better than my Portuguese - hell, it's probably better than MY English...   :P[/quote]

Cool... ;D
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

John, nice screen grab of the footage.
Now, the MILLION DOLLAR BABY question, and one let's hope we don't have to euthanize,
is there a recipe book of "tweaks" if you will for getting even sem-accurate outputs of film.
Hmmm...that doesn't make sense, so I'll try again. For instance, we all know in our head what the original Wizard of Oz looked like. Total technicolor over the top colors, etc. What are the settings in say MB or DFT that will allow my raw/flat footage to have that same feel. I understand how important lighting is, but with editing technology, if it is properly lit, or nearly so, I should be able to approximate the look.
The "cookbook" would have recipes for most of the popular films, film techniques. Is this available? Or am I asking for the secret to Coke?
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

John, nice screen grab of the footage.
Now, the MILLION DOLLAR BABY question, and one let's hope we don't have to euthanize,
is there a recipe book of "tweaks" if you will for getting even sem-accurate outputs of film.
Hmmm...that doesn't make sense, so I'll try again. For instance, we all know in our head what the original Wizard of Oz looked like. Total technicolor over the top colors, etc. What are the settings in say MB or DFT that will allow my raw/flat footage to have that same feel. I understand how important lighting is, but with editing technology, if it is properly lit, or nearly so, I should be able to approximate the look.
The "cookbook" would have recipes for most of the popular films, film techniques. Is this available? Or am I asking for the secret to Coke?
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

Well, in DFT there are a ton of presets (as I believe there are in MB) which if not delivering the holy grail to you, should put you in the right neighborhood. You're going to be dealing with very saturated colors, I would probably turn the color gain up in camera first. I believe the Wizard of Oz was done in three strip technicolor (much how our cameras work) so if you know exactly the look you're going for, you might actually get good results by first experimenting with the camera.

DFT has a 3 strip technicolor preset, which can also be tweaked.

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

Here's my take on that filmic CC look. Let's keep in mind this is what I do and what I currently prefer. These are my general steps for tweaking an image to my liking:

1. Brightness / Contrast Ratio

I use the videoscopes to keep it somewhere between 0 and 80 IRE. Highlights peak at 100 IRE so anything above that and your getting a Sulfur look. I start by increasing Brightness till it peaks at about 80 IRE; this will cause your blacks to move up and away from 0 IRE but then I use the Contrast to bring it back down to 0 IRE.

Then, in Vegas I use an Ultimate S HSL plug in that is called SUPER 16. Really I am just oversaturating the image and tweaking of this is always needed.

Then, I use a 6wcc to make any fine adjustments.

Then, I tend to goto the Secondary CC for my ZOMBIE GREEN tint I like

Then, I adjust the levels a final time; mainly concentrating on the black level or ALPHA channel.

Thats about it.

cc7cz.jpg
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

And when I hear you say that you're "crushing your blacks in post", how are you achieving this?
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

Using the Brightness / Contrast gives me a headstart; but I use the LEVELS adjustment (ALPHA)
 
Re: Rethinking my entire process.....

but 4:3 DV is 720x480 at a .9 pixel aspect. so lets take 720 and mulitply it by .9 to get the square pixel aspect ..we get 648. so 648 x480 .. is it true 4:3 ?.. no its not 640 x 480 is.. and 648x486 is
Click to expand...
Is it just me, or does this look like some magical mathematical divine relationship?

[tt]486486486486486486486486486
486x864
486 x648[/tt]

Then, of course, you cut off the 6 from 486... This is cool, it makes it easy to remember! Who would have thought of that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top