Spill your beans!

jgastelb

jgastelb

Well-known member
Hi,
I was just wondering if people would want to share the ways they are using Vegas to achieve a more FILMIC look in their projects. I know I have learned a lot from this website and Vasst. I like using two tracks on top of each other with an overlay then add a blur to the bottom track for softening the image(Glamour article from Vasst).
What other things are you using to get a that FILM look? Please share original and learned techniques if you don't mind! I really think it would be awesome if people, including me, would learn more about CC and such...
Thanks!
Jgastelb
 
All the tricks in Vegas or any other program aren't going to get you the "film" look, if your base footage is not good. Lighting is the key to the film look, followed closely by 24p.

Bad lighting will destroy any real hope of getting a film look.

But besudes that, Curves and saturation will get you closer.
 
Rapier_100a said:
All the tricks in Vegas or any other program aren't going to get you the "film" look, if your base footage is not good. Lighting is the key to the film look, followed closely by 24p.

Bad lighting will destroy any real hope of getting a film look.

But besudes that, Curves and saturation will get you closer.
Click to expand...

Rapier,
I agree with this. No doubt about that! I was referring to once you get the right lighting, composition and all that other stuff. I mean... Once you get that into Vegas what are some of the things people are doing besides curves and saturation. For example, are people using a contrasty layer on top of a non-cc video to add a certain look. This is what I was talking about. I know that when I look at some of the footage in this website I see more than just the basics. It seems like some folks are using color gradients and that sort of thing. I would like to know more about that.
Jgastelb
 
Ahhh.


I get it. Curves will help, I also like to add "depth" by putting 2 layers above the base, bluring them both, setting one to multiply, and one to scerrn, and turning the opacity of each down. Technically, this can lower contrast, but it can also give it a nice look.

Also, I like to put a colored solid at the top of the stack set to darken or overlay, with opacity at about 15-30, to bring the whole color pallet where you want it.

Isolating the highs, mids, and darks and tweaking each independently on it's own track is also a cool way to fake dynamic range to a degree.
 
Assuming everything is equal in all of the other ingredient's (Lighting, composition, etc)

I likeunderexpose and shoot flat and then tweak my contrast/brightness/level's in post.
 
John_Hudson said:
Assuming everything is equal in all of the other ingredient's (Lighting, composition, etc)

I likeunderexpose and shoot flat and then tweak my contrast/brightness/level's in post.
Click to expand...

I don't use Vegas, but I use Avid, and I shoot as John does... pretty flat, and I add my depth in post CC.
 
Rapier_100a said:
Ahhh.


I get it. Curves will help, I also like to add "depth" by putting 2 layers above the base, bluring them both, setting one to multiply, and one to scerrn, and turning the opacity of each down. Technically, this can lower contrast, but it can also give it a nice look.

Also, I like to put a colored solid at the top of the stack set to darken or overlay, with opacity at about 15-30, to bring the whole color pallet where you want it.

Isolating the highs, mids, and darks and tweaking each independently on it's own track is also a cool way to fake dynamic range to a degree.
Click to expand...


Rapier,
Thanks for the tip. I will try what you're talking about tonight and see what kind of results I get. Awesome!
Keep them coming guys!
Jgastelb
 
David Jimerson said:
Rapier likes nasty render times! :)
Click to expand...

Heh. I don't, actually, I'm just so used to doing things by hand, I end up doing things the hard way sometimes. Longest render ratio thus far is 27 to 1. And the end result was over an hour. Youch!




jgastelb said:
Rapier,
Here's your suggested technique.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/attachment.php?attachmentid=548&stc=1&d=1150252753

Then with 3 layers. Solid Color on top as Rapier mentioned.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/attachment.php?attachmentid=549&stc=1&d=1150252793
Click to expand...

Nice. The highlights on the wheels are a little blown on the after one, and we lost a little mids, but you it looks good.
 
That depends completely on the look I am needing. I don't use that method for everything, and it is epecially handy to give a "mystical" look (don't use the Mutliply layer) or a dark moody look (don't use the screen Layer) and in addition to the amount of blur, the opacity of each as well. If you have a scene that is pretty dark, you won't need as much of the multiply/darken layer, and vice versa.

Totally up to you, 5-10 pixels width is usually a good place to hang out around, but I have cranked the Screen layer up to 30+ when needed.
 
Here's the technical differences I'm aware of:

--Film records more exposure latitude to begin with... this gives a different look. With video acquisition, you'd be looking at cameras that can record as much dynamic range as possible.
The DVX100 allows a little more dynamic range if you tweak its settings... but the Andromeda mod shows there's even more dynamic range to be had.
The problem with getting even more dynamic range is that there is color shifting in the highlights.
You also need post processing... which gets to the next point.

--Film's transfer function has a s shape to it. Some people call this a s-shaped gamma curve.
This adds contrast, and changes the saturation. Highlights de-saturate, midtones get more saturation, dark colors de-saturate.
Do this in Vegas via the color curves.

--24p motion

--Resolution
At SD resolution, this doesn't matter much in my opinion.

--Implementation - excessive sharpening
In Vegas, you can sort of deal with this via diffusion effects.
One way to do it is via unsharp mask. Amount = about -.0500, radius about 0.020, threshold 0

There are other really subtle differences:

--film grain

--color response

--different focus in the different film layers


Non-technical factors:
--There are lots of talented cinematographers who know how to shoot film well. They may not have as much experience with video.

--Film has a bigger base of experienced labour + R&D dollars behind it.
i.e. the color correctors for film (i.e. Da Vinci) are really good and better than what's available for video workflows. Tape to tape is sort of a silly workflow if you originate video, but is done because the film-oriented color correctors are better. People like the da Vinci better than an Avid Symphony or what not.

--Film shoots generally have more money.
 
glenn chan said:
Here's the technical differences I'm aware of:

--Film records more exposure latitude to begin with... this gives a different look. With video acquisition, you'd be looking at cameras that can record as much dynamic range as possible.
The DVX100 allows a little more dynamic range if you tweak its settings... but the Andromeda mod shows there's even more dynamic range to be had.
The problem with getting even more dynamic range is that there is color shifting in the highlights.
You also need post processing... which gets to the next point.

--Film's transfer function has a s shape to it. Some people call this a s-shaped gamma curve.
This adds contrast, and changes the saturation. Highlights de-saturate, midtones get more saturation, dark colors de-saturate.
Do this in Vegas via the color curves.

--24p motion

--Resolution
At SD resolution, this doesn't matter much in my opinion.

--Implementation - excessive sharpening
In Vegas, you can sort of deal with this via diffusion effects.
One way to do it is via unsharp mask. Amount = about -.0500, radius about 0.020, threshold 0

There are other really subtle differences:

--film grain

--color response

--different focus in the different film layers


Non-technical factors:
--There are lots of talented cinematographers who know how to shoot film well. They may not have as much experience with video.

--Film has a bigger base of experienced labour + R&D dollars behind it.
i.e. the color correctors for film (i.e. Da Vinci) are really good and better than what's available for video workflows. Tape to tape is sort of a silly workflow if you originate video, but is done because the film-oriented color correctors are better. People like the da Vinci better than an Avid Symphony or what not.

--Film shoots generally have more money.
Click to expand...




Great post.
 
Wow...Thank you Rapier and Glenn. You just blew my mind.

I can't wait to try out some of this tomorrow.

And all this time I've just been using CC + CC2 + curves + glow + grain + Magic Bullet.

Layers. Awesome. Thanks.
 
glenn chan vbmenu_register("postmenu_585971", true); ,

That unsharp mask trick is cool! It kinda does what rapier said without darkening the picture. Both ideas are great. These are the kinds of things you learn by exploring your options. Thanks for the info!!!
Jgastelb
 
A lot of people get pretty snooty about softness and grain, and chortle that people trying to achieve that look with video are deluding themselves, because people who work with film have been trying to get rid of both for decades.

My thought on that has always been "so what"? It is what it is. And what it is (film) is softer and grainier.

Video and film are fundementally very different processes, physically, for acquiring moving pictures.

If you want one to look like the other, you need to take on the physical characteristics of the other as best you can, and that includes what some would deride as imperfections.

Otherwise, it won't look like what you're trying to make it look like.
 
David,
To put it simply... Video will never be film or vice-versa. But if you can't afford a Ferrari maybe try to make your Honda look nicer. One does not have to copy the other and DV is good on its own. However, the harsh real sharp look of interlaced is one thing I do not want in my projects. I don't want to see footage that looks like America's Funniest Videos. Know what I mean?
Jgastelb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top