Standard vs Superflat

[StanrickKubley]

BTW, I shot a sit-down interview on set the other day with Marvel PS engaged and although I was happy with the overall look of the shot, the skin tones were pumpkin and chalky as others report - so I'm now using Neutral with Contrast, Sharpness at 0 and Saturation down 2 as mentioned in a post above.

Would you happen to have a capture of the weird skin tones? I haven't seen this so far, but I want to know what to look for. Also, did you see any of the weird color shifts in the monitor while shooting? Also, where abouts are you seeing the color strangeness - mids, closer to highlights?

 

[Perry Wilson]

Finally more people understanding where I was coming from... I'm sorry if it bothered anyone I just hated the fact that all of a sudden "this amazing superior" picture setting invaded the 7D market. It wasn't that I didn't like Superflat, its just that it was wrong... in many aspects. Those of you that loved superflat, at least try the Marvel Cine picture style... it has similar depth but it preserves the beautiful colors that we have all come to know and love with this amazing camera.

 

[ZumaDog]

Would you happen to have a capture of the weird skin tones? I haven't seen this so far, but I want to know what to look for. Also, did you see any of the weird color shifts in the monitor while shooting? Also, where abouts are you seeing the color strangeness - mids, closer to highlights?

I'm sorry but I can't distribute any stills or video of that shoot because it was shot on a network drama series and I would get into a lot of trouble for doing that from the movie studio I shot for. Suffice to say that there are enough reports of troubles with the Marvel curve displaying this skin tone artifact that someone somewhere must have posted a still picture of it by now.

I'm only using Marvel's curve now on exterior shots for highlight suppression where skin tones are not a factor like landscapes, etc. I have found that his curve is more satisfactory outdoors than SuperFlat or the Panavision Genesis curves.

The comment above about modifying the Neutral PS to replicate the SuperFlat would be worthy of a test as I have noticed that skin tones are nicely replicated with the Neutral.

One last thing, I meant waveform not vectorscope in my post requesting ideas as to how to simulate a saw pattern with the 7D.

 

[Beeblebrox]

My next test is going to be with the Neutral settings. I like the superflat but I'm definitely open to something that's better and easier to work with.

 

[Kholi]

I haven't found a single reason, OTHER than creating a VERY specific FINAL look IN CAMERA, to use custom curves. It's pointless, it's not RAW data. Messing around with this stuff in post outside of simple adjustments just doesn't make much sense.

Get it in camera. Use Neutral and dial accordingly if you need something flat, SUPERFLAT just looks HORRIBLE and it doesn't do anything extra for you if you're grading. Again, this footage is nowhere near-to RAW or anything that you should be blasting with crazy grades, it is what it is.

The second you begin to do these things and view it, in full quality on a LARGE source, is the second you realize you should have just gotten it in camera.

 

[Beeblebrox]

SUPERFLAT just looks HORRIBLE and it doesn't do anything extra for you if you're grading.

Yes it does.

 

[PaPa]

also, superflat doesn't treat low exposure areas very nicely.

 

[Kholi]

Where do you think the extra information is coming from? Because you convert something that originated in a subpar format to something decent? It's still the same crap image.

Furthermore, the second you go to bring contrast back is the second you reveal the banding and signal noise that's been there the entire time. And it's there, in EVERYTHING you record, simply getting it in camera hides it and trying to grade this junk brings it to the surface swiftly.

Why degrade an already busted image?

 

[Beeblebrox]

Why degrade an already busted image?

Then why shoot on the 7D at all?

Superflat and Standard and Neutral are ALL exactly the same thing. They are curves applied to the RAW image and then compressed all to hell into h264. But those different curves do different things to the image. Each has its use.

Not everything can be gotten or should be gotten "in camera." That doesn't even happen on big expensive Hollywood films, or the industry of color grading would not exist.

But if your issue is the h264 compression in the first place, then I wouldn't recommend the 7D for anything, because that's what you're going to get.

 

[Kholi]

Then why shoot on the 7D at all?

Are you implying that you must grade an image for it to be worthy of distribution??? I don't think so.

Superflat and Standard and Neutral are ALL exactly the same thing. They are curves applied to the RAW image and then compressed all to hell into h264. But those different curves do different things to the image. Each has its use.

They are the same thing, NOT the same curve. Superflat and Neutral look nothing like each other. I'd break my camera if Neutral looked like Superflat.

Not everything can be gotten or should be gotten "in camera." That doesn't even happen on big expensive Hollywood films, or the industry of color grading would not exist.

Looks are typically decided on in Pre-Production and Conception. You get what you can in camera, and TWEAK later. It's generally NOT an all out "change purple to orange" fest.

But if your issue is the h264 compression in the first place, then I wouldn't recommend the 7D for anything, because that's what you're going to get.

I don't have an issue with it. I shoot close to what I know it needs to look like, which means getting it before it hits the card and is compressed to all hades and back. On the contrary, why use the 7D if you're trying to grade something insanely?

 

[Beeblebrox]

Are you implying that you must grade an image for it to be worthy of distribution??? I don't think so.

No, I'm simply saying that not everything should or can be gotten in camera. Color grading and color correction are a big part of the process for a reason.

They are the same thing, NOT the same curve. Superflat and Neutral look nothing like each other. I'd break my camera if Neutral looked like Superflat.

The point here is that BOTH are "degrading" the image. The camera is baking curves into the RAW image and then compressing it to h264. In other words, Neutral and Standard do not degrade the image LESS than Superflat. They just apply different curves.

On the contrary, why use the 7D if you're trying to grade something insanely?

That question makes no sense. EVERY camera needs grading in some way or another. The color grading in superflat is not insane at all. If I was shooting on the Red, I'd shoot exactly the same way, trying to preserve highlights and shadow information as much as possible, getting my lighting ratios the way I want them, and then taking all of that into a color grading session to apply a final look. The compromise of the 7D is that it heavily compresses the images and limits the flexibility of grading, but that would be true no matter what image settings one applies.

Again, no one is saying YOU must shoot superflat. It's obviously not for everyone. That doesn't make it pointless.

 

[Kholi]

No, I'm simply saying that not everything should or can be gotten in camera. Color grading and color correction are a big part of the process for a reason.

It's supposed to be used to fix problems... so basically, in regards to the 7D only (not Film or RED which are completely different beasts) and Superflat versus Neutral... you cause a problem out of the gate so you can fix it in post? I don't get it...

The point here is that BOTH are "degrading" the image. The camera is baking curves into the RAW image and then compressing it to h264. In other words, Neutral and Standard do not degrade the image LESS than Superflat. They just apply different curves.

But grading it does further degrade the image. Adjusting contrast, saturation and other points obviously reveals the flaws of compression more than the simply capturing it in camera. Even adjusting saturation etc with Neutral is a lot less stressful on the [horrible] image than the alternative in discussion.

That question makes no sense. EVERY camera needs grading in some way or another. The color grading in superflat is not insane at all. If I was shooting on the Red, I'd shoot exactly the same way, trying to preserve highlights and shadow information as much as possible, getting my lighting ratios the way I want them, and then taking all of that into a color grading session to apply a final look.

The 7D does not shoot anything close to what RED does. There's no comparing them. If you shoot RED, you're shooting RAW to begin with. It's obvious that you're going to preserve your choice on the grid and then grade.

The 7D is NOT that. It's always garbage in garbage out. With RED and FILM you have a choice. You do not with the 7D. Not sure why people keep comparing these mediums when they are not one in the same.

Oh well.

 

[Beeblebrox]

It's supposed to be used to fix problems

Not always.

you cause a problem out of the gate so you can fix it in post? I don't get it...

Preserving detail in shadows and highlights isn't really creating a problem. Those settings, for those who choose it, give the filmmaker something else to work with in color grading. If the shadows and highlights are lost in different curve settings, then they can't be brought back. For some people, that's a bigger problem than grading the noisier superflat settings.

Both settings are compromises. The different settings allow you to choose which you prefer to deal with as a shooter/filmmaker.

With RED and FILM you have a choice. You do not with the 7D.

Of course you have a choice with the 7D. People shoot with it and color grade with it all the time.

The 7D is NOT that. It's always garbage in garbage out.

Again, then why shoot with the 7D at all and why care what other people choose to do with their images?

 

[Kholi]

Again, then why shoot with the 7D at all and why care what other people choose to do with their images?

Again, it has nothing to do with why *I* choose to shoot with the 7D.

Second, you're right here caring what other people choose to do with their images as well. So why ask that question?

Shoot it up man.

 

[Beeblebrox]

Second, you're right here caring what other people choose to do with their images as well.

Actually I'm not. I'm showing the differences between superflat and standard and what one offers over the other. I've repeatedly said that it's up to you and what you want to do. I haven't said that other people's preferences are "pointless" or that everyone here is shooting "garbage." See the difference?

 

[Stephen Mick]

I hate to break up the love-fest here, but I thought I'd share my take on all of this.

When I first got the 7D, I ran through just about all of the "baked-in" settings and curves to see what they could do. After running through them all, and making some adjustments, I came to a similar conclusion as Kholi, but for a different reason.

Some people shoot to create grading options and color-correcting "space." Perhaps they need this potential/perceived latitude in post to accommodate a client, a director/producer, or just because, well, they like to play around. There's nothing wrong with this at all.

Personally, I've tried to find a "look" with my footage that's highly-saturated and pretty contrasty. My clients like this look, and have even commented on how "original" the footage they see in my work seems. (I don't say this to stroke my own ego. There are much better shooters out there than I. This is only to relate a story and make a point.) When they hire me, they want that look.

Now, why would I shoot with any other mission than to provide footage as close to this "look" as possible? All it would do is make more work in post, which means my time and the client's money. And we'd just end up with footage I could have delivered to the client in the first place, straight out of the camera.

I've downloaded and shot with both the Marvels and Superflat styles, and I think they both have their place. I've certainly had instances where there was a real need to "even out" the image, preserving shadow detail in some pretty harsh conditions. I've also seen them used beautifully by both shooters and colorists who really know their stuff. They certainly have application and value, but I'm not sure I'd use them as my "default" settings. I like to deliver footage as close to "finished" as I can, even if that limits some options in post.

But again, I think it depends on the job, the amount of post work you want to deal with, and the "look" you need. Ultimately, I think having these looks available is smart, but relying solely on any of them is foolish. If you have a quick-turn job, and still need/want a certain "look," you better know how to deliver it as closely as possible with your raw footage.

A friend of mine (a creative director at an ad agency) worked on a client job shot on the 5DII. The settings were some variation on "superflat" designed to maximize range and provide grading space in post. They took the footage into a high-end telecine/color-correction room and found that even with the tools they had, it took more time and (unfortunately) more of the client's money, to get the look they wanted. He didn't say that the footage fell apart or degraded in any real way, only that they had a long way to go to get from where they started to where they wanted to be.

He took one look at some of my footage from the 7D and GH1 and said, "we should have just hired you to shoot this."

So in closing, there is no right or wrong, unless the look is "off" for the subject (or client) you're working with. But regardless which setting you choose, anyone who trusts their shoot to a "look" or file they downloaded off the internet is setting themselves up for potential disappointment. In the end, it's YOUR camera. Not Hurlbut's. Not Charter's. Not Bloom's.

Test. Refine. Test more. Find the "look" you like (whatever it is). Go shoot.

 

[Beeblebrox]

I agree that different situations call for different settings. I think a good test for me to do next will be a quick lighting set up shooting Standard vs Superflat vs Neutral vs Marvel Cine - then color grading all three to get to a certain look and evaluating strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Uwe Lansing]

I agree that different situations call for different settings. I think a good test for me to do next will be a quick lighting set up shooting Standard vs Superflat vs Neutral vs Marvel Cine - then color grading all three to get to a certain look and evaluating strengths and weaknesses.

Good idea. I´m curious about the results...

 

[ZumaDog]

I agree that different situations call for different settings. I think a good test for me to do next will be a quick lighting set up shooting Standard vs Superflat vs Neutral vs Marvel Cine - then color grading all three to get to a certain look and evaluating strengths and weaknesses.

I was curious too and shot some tests with Superflat 10 & 20, Genesis Panavision and Neutral (tweaked). I'm color grading the clips in FCP7 with the simple 3-point color corrector, and I'm going to post the different stills when I'm finished (and figure out how to upload JPEG's easily) in a separate thread.

The reason I did this is because I was very unhappy with skin tones on all of these Picture Style curves that are discussed here, and wanted to find the "right" one. The tweaked Neutral was the best, the others were unsatisfactory - speaking of skin tones only.

Finally, just to comment on why employ these curves, I can say as an F900R and EX1 owner/user that I would never ever shoot with a straight linear curve on any digital camera capable of utilizing gamma curves. HyperGamma Curves have helped me create some of the absolute best images I've ever shot. I go back all the way to Plumbicon tube SD cameras (Ikegami HL79) and never want to be stuck in that boat again. You are just minimizing your total data count by not bending the gamma curve to preserve highlights and lift shadow areas. All it ever takes to fix is a slight pedestal (black) crush and some mid-tone tweaking to bring it to a natural - shall I say linear look without losing highlight details, etc. The problem with the 7D curves so far has been bad representation of skin tones which the higher end cameras from F900R to Red and EX1 don't have a problem with when gamma curves are used. The quest here, on my part is to find the 'holy grail' of skin tone representional perfection.

 

[powervideo]

I started out using the superflat / marvel settings but now shoot only on a slightly modified Nuetral in-camera setting. I also work as an editor and do extensive grading on my projects for mainly braodcast use. I've come to the conclusion that the 7D codec doesn't hold up as well I would like in grading. Converting to 10-bit Uncompressed doesn't make any difference. If the colour/gamma information is not there in the original is it not going to get "better". Aggressive post manipulation of the chroma and gamma can create that nasty 8-bit posterisation effect.

The grade can make it look amazing, but I'm starting to think this should only be for a very specific project. If I shoot for someone else as a freelancer, the editor is just as likely to complain that the footage is washed out and awful is using superflat. (particularly if they are not colourists)

So like other writers above, I go with the settings in-camera that will allow a small amount of grading - the main adjustments being sharpness and contrast in-camera.