Saturated, colorful pictures?
- Thread starter schiller
- Start date
...whatever you think is correct is correct. if thats the image you want , than thats correct for you. the adjustable settings are there so that as artists we can set it how we like it. other wise they would just set it up "technically correct" and call it a day. just play with it as much as you want and see what you like. you can always reset it back to normal factory settings.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
And always make sure you do a proper White Balance!
Barry_Green
Moderator
Color saturation can be accomplished in many ways.
First, and most often overlooked -- if you want saturated colors, shoot something colorful! This is where art direction comes in. Make sure that whatever you're shooting is richly saturated.
Second, you can accentuate color saturation on objects by lighting them that way. For example, if you have a blue vase, and you want it to look B L U E, try putting a blue gel on the light that's illuminating it. That can really make colors pop.
Third, for in-camera, aim for underexposure. The lower in the exposure range, the richer the color will be.
Fourth, as Neil said, there are settings in the camera that can *dramatically* influence color rendition. For the most eye-popping oversaturated candy-color look, Chroma Level +7 and CineMatrix. Also, if you want to tint towards blue or red, Color Temp can have a huge effect (provided you're in manual white balance mode, and not preset). And lowering the master pedestal can lead to a high-contrast look that really draws attention to the color - LOW gamma with a master ped of -10, chroma level +7, plus CineMatrix, will give you some very strong colors.
First, and most often overlooked -- if you want saturated colors, shoot something colorful! This is where art direction comes in. Make sure that whatever you're shooting is richly saturated.
Second, you can accentuate color saturation on objects by lighting them that way. For example, if you have a blue vase, and you want it to look B L U E, try putting a blue gel on the light that's illuminating it. That can really make colors pop.
Third, for in-camera, aim for underexposure. The lower in the exposure range, the richer the color will be.
Fourth, as Neil said, there are settings in the camera that can *dramatically* influence color rendition. For the most eye-popping oversaturated candy-color look, Chroma Level +7 and CineMatrix. Also, if you want to tint towards blue or red, Color Temp can have a huge effect (provided you're in manual white balance mode, and not preset). And lowering the master pedestal can lead to a high-contrast look that really draws attention to the color - LOW gamma with a master ped of -10, chroma level +7, plus CineMatrix, will give you some very strong colors.
Flintstone
Well-known member
And as a last resort, you can always to it in post!
God I hate that expression! Or should I say, that philosophy?
If your footage is already on tape and you can't reshoot, then color correct in post (i.e. punch up the saturation and play with the gamma as desired). But it's always preferable to shoot it right in the first place. And the DVX is a GREAT tool for that, IF you take the time to understand it. I learned that the hard way. :-(
God I hate that expression! Or should I say, that philosophy?
If your footage is already on tape and you can't reshoot, then color correct in post (i.e. punch up the saturation and play with the gamma as desired). But it's always preferable to shoot it right in the first place. And the DVX is a GREAT tool for that, IF you take the time to understand it. I learned that the hard way. :-(
Jaime Valles
Veteran
And be careful of bright red colored objects. They can pixelate very easily and look nasty if not done with care (this is one of the biggest drawbacks of shooting in MiniDV with its 4:1:1 color space.)
Have fun!
Have fun!
Flintstone
Well-known member
Which reminds me.... YEEESSSSSS!!!!!! 4:2:2 on the HDX!!! :evil: :engel017: :laugh: :happy: No more bastard reds!!!!jrv3034 said:
OB1
Active member
Flintstone said:
Flintstone, you say it's "preferable" to shoot right as opposed to color correcting, contrasting, etc. in post. Can you be more specific about the reasons it is "prefered"?
Do you loose something inhancing/correcting the footage in post - quality/resolution?
My current big concern is over my plans to shoot a great deal of outdoor footage when using the anamorphic adapter and not having the almost $2,000 Chrosziel matte box/filter/polarizer setup to use with the anamorphic to be able to create good deep, contrasting colors in outdoor shooting. I was hoping to be able to achieve the look of shooting with the polarizer by doing applying the vivid contrast in post. Am I going to loose something by doing this? (Besides TIME in rendering maybe?)
Any advise on this issue whould be greatly appreciated!
- thanks
monte
Bag of Douche
I am a firm believer in doing any needed color 'tones' in post. That's just how I roll, but think of it this way - all that time you spend setting the camera up to get that look - you could spend your time getting more footage, and what happens if you decide that look is really shitty or cliche? Well - you gotta correct it back to what you want, more wasted time.
-monte
-monte
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
I am against manipulating the image in camera for sake of time and changing light conditions (outside of a controlled environment); as always; I say get the truest image from the camera and then do it in post. I'm not saying don't make any adjustments ata ll; but overall I go for pure.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Yes, correcting in post will cost you a little quality. If you can get the shot optically, that would be better (but obviously more difficult). When you go into post to do it, you're relying on digital manipulation of a compressed image, which will be compressed again when you're done. It's not a big deal, but if you're asking if one solution would reveal better results than the other, then yes, if you can get it "right" during the production stage, that'll be the best.