Standard vs Superflat

This was shot superflat:

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE
 
Superflat gives the ability to get alot of hidden latitude in the top end. its kind of amazing actually.

This is what we did with this shot with an ENORMOUS gap in contrast between the subject and the background. I wanted a monolithic impression of the mounted officer. But exposed VERY carefully, and was able to keep all the +100IRE detail using a spot meter. The 5D is a designed to work with light meters. USE THEM. you can and have great accuracy.

Before:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

AFTER:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
 
Edit... I though this was a different thread lol but still any help :)

I hate to possibly necro a thread here but I have a issue... with the EOS utility of course.

My problem is that I used it before to load photos but for some reason now whenever I connect the camera to it to update the picture styles the live preview works and such but every time I try to do anything (like register a new user picture style) it just says busy...

any ideas?
 
ChuckS said:
[OK a quick aside here, I'm not talking about the three way color corrector in FCP or the equivalent in PPRO, I'm talking about Apple Color, Synthetic Aperture (AE), or DaVince]
....
Also if you don't have a good color grading application [or don't know how to use it] you can use the 3-way color corrector in FCP, however you won't have nearly the options for correcting any mistakes in exposure or white balance and the results can leave you a little flat :D
Click to expand...
So what is the difference between high end apps and FCP/PP's color grading options? Is it a matter of tools, precision, and/or how it handles values under the hood?

I'm working with Premiere, and I seem to have just about everything I would need (in my non-pro opinion), although doing some things (masking) is more time-consuming than I've heard it is in better grading apps. The real issue is banding, etc, and I've heard people talk about how Colorista or other programs handle similar corrections better than PP/FCP. Why is that, if it is (apparently) so?
ChuckS said:
And as I mentioned earlier there is no "making of false" colors. There's no magic. once you convert your footage to ProRes (if your on a Mac) or something like Cineform (on a PC) you can color correct in 32 bit float. Just because you don't see the information does not mean the color information isn't there.
Click to expand...
So it's advisable to convert h.264 footage into a fuller color codec for grading before exporting back into h.264? What are freer alternatives to Cineform with similar performance?
 
Are people using Super flat not noticing the absolute loss of the rolloff on both ends of the spectrum? Exposure goes from dark then clips to black and the same happens to the hilights. I stopped using it for this reason. neutral with contrast down seems to be the way to go.
 
I would like to add my voice to the chorus of support for NEUTRAL with contrast at 0.

NB: for those calling for a comparison between SUPERFLAT and STANDARD, it would be utterly pointless. We all know the default STANDARD style is too contrasty.

NEUTRAL with Contrast at 0 is the one to beat. The Contrast control is the only one that affects the black and white points and is the greatest determinant of dynamic range. And if you like, you can make it look just as bad as SUPERFLAT with an inverted S curve in post!

I suggest that all the gruesome information that SUPERFLAT shoves in your face is also there in NEUTRAL (Contrast=0). You just need to slap a curve on to see it.
 
Flat does have some advantages

Flat does have some advantages

Superflat has always been my most hated style though. Marvel Cine-Gamma is great for well exposed, even lighting. I decided it was best to create my own and I think we nailed it after a few days of trial and error. - I'd love to get some feedback on our Canon Flat Picture Style

Here is a comparison with the standard style - LED lightsource in a nightclub.
StandardVsPancake.jpg
 
interesting. i suggest you start your own dedicated topic to garner more attention 2 this new pic style, however from the pic it doesnt seem to offer that much more dynamic range over standard in the shadows primarily. It does seem so in the highlights though from the faces.
 
But its identical frame ,second one is original and first one bumped in post to overexpose faces ?
Anyway i tested it along with many other pic styles but i kept contrast in the middle on all of them and all of them are identical in shadows and overexposed areas,only marvels cine is a bit brighter,probably cause gamma is bumped.
 
bwwd said:
But its identical frame ,second one is original and first one bumped in post to overexpose faces ?
Anyway i tested it along with many other pic styles but i kept contrast in the middle on all of them and all of them are identical in shadows and overexposed areas,only marvels cine is a bit brighter,probably cause gamma is bumped.
Click to expand...

They are the same frame, but you are wrong about the post. This was a simple test of the style by applying it in the EOS Utility. Gamma, s-curve, color are all slightly changed. Like I stated, it's a "semi-flat" style - I don't believe the superflat styles are good for anything - they don't take extrememly well to proper color correction. I'm still a Cine-Gamma fan, but haven't been using it much lately since making this style. Test it with a few shots and let me know what you think, and maybe I should post some additional frame comparisons.

The shot was actually taken with a neutral style, all settings on low, and then the styles were applied. The results reversed are nearly identical. This is a real comparison.
 
I tested styles only to see if i can gain some more info in highlights and shadows and when i keep contrast in pic styles at the middle then all of them are the same picture,onjly marvels cine is a bit washed out.
 
it seems superflat and marvelcine both introduce a LOT of grain in the darks, and really kill skin tones. i made my own curve to match an XH A1 preset i favor; marvelcine and superflat ill never use.
 
Tend to agree with Kholi - I likes to shoot with something that looks pleasing to the eye, figuring that the more you have to do in post, the more noise you're asking for.

I tried every possible combination, and to my eye, taking down the contract just makes it look rotten. I'm sure DIing makes it looks better, and I know gurus like Phil Bloom (who I greatly respect) advocate a super-flat style, but I don't want to spend a month in post making it look a smidge better then I can make it look in camera.

I hate DIing - I'm all about instant love.
 
For me, it comes down to if you plan to use post processing tools.
If you do, then they work better by flattening the image capture.
The reason is that most of these tools "over do it" on a normal image.

If you take a normal image and throw a magic bullet filter on it, most will think it looks great at first,
but then realize it looks over done.

If you have a flattened image, and apply the same filter, the result is that it looks professionally done.

If you do not use filters like magic bullet, then you will likely prefer to get it the way you want in the camera.
The problem being, you may get exposure and contrast the way you want, but the image will not look "special".
At best, it will look like properly exposed footage. For some that is great, for others they want it not only to look properly exposed, but
different than just good.

Maybe not better, but different.
I use to be a photographer of super models.
When my friends and I would hang out with them afterwards,
later, they would eventually say, "I have seen prettier girls than them".

Again, the super models, usually got there not because they were the prettiest girls, but because they
generally looked different than "other girls".

That's my take on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top