test scene from work in progress road picture

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

A) because its a ****ing forum where people try to learn something
B) because the Dood posted his **** for feedback
C) you wanna get barry green or Jarred on here and ask em about shooting with teh Master Ped at +12?

Blowing the highlights out is one thing but blowing the BLACKS OUT is ALMOST NEVER DONE.

AND quite frankly looks like a mistake and and color correction done on an impropperly calibrated monitor.

I' dare you to find one clip on DVXuser or from a professional film where the BLACKS are blown out to this degree.

John and I are a little confused by this choice.

Offered som pointers on it, while simultaneously saying that it may be a matter of taste but this is a highly unusual stylistic choice.

We also asked why on God's green Earth that anyone would shoot at plus 12 and haven't heard anything ... maybe we could learn something ... but so far radio silence

How you have 860 posts and don't know this is how things are done around here is a little mystifiying.

"here's my clip"
"wow looks great"
"actually the color correction doesn't match from this shot to that but still looks good"
"yeah I know it's just a rough cut"
or
"yeah I know I did that on purpose for artistic reasonns"
or
"or yeah I wanted it to be jarring there because of what the character is goinhg through"
or
"hey now that you mention it I should look at that again"

Why do you think we're pointing out what could be better and what looks like a mistake to us?

To make ourselves seem cool?

To keep an obviously very talented filmaker down?

You know I had the exact same reaction as John about the blacks before I read any of the posts ... and there's a couple of people around here that actually think John and I know WTF we are talking about.

If we looked at it and had that immediate reaction do you really think no producers or money people that see this as this guy shops it around might not have the same response? It's at least possible no?

I know how to give criticism. If you think the comments made in THIS THREAD are inapproriate or bagging on the guy then again, I don't know where you spent those 860 posts.

We're being honest and trying to help the guy out and have a discussion and maybe learn something if he has some great technical or stylistic or artistic justification for BLOWING the ****ing blacks out.

HIS FILM IS NOT "BROADCAST SAFE" HIS LEVELS ARE OFF and not off in ways that are typically forgivable, like blowing out the whites or crushinhg the blacks. If you or anyone else posted something like interior footage that that was balanced for daylight, or exteriot footage that was all blue, a simmilat discussion would follow "Did you mean everything inside to look orange like that? What NLE are you on, you can still white balance it in post ... unless that's what you are going for ... if so why?"
That's a really different discussion than "I never would have used so much blue in the color correction" or something. One is purely aesthetic and one is a techincal error based on broadcast standards AND a certain agreeed upon vocabulary that most audiences iintrisically know. Even if it was "I just disagree aesthically" that's still valid completely approriate discussion.

We said we liked it. We see what looks like a mistake in the color correction. I guess next time we should just shut the **** up and let someone that matters tell him after he's locked his picture down and is trying to get a distribution deal or something,

So WTF is with bagging on people that are actually trying to be supportive by being honest and thought the project was exciting enough to warrant sharing what we thought about it.?

And as for SHOULD! John is right. The blackest part of your image 99.99999999999999999 timmes out of ten SHOULD be as black as your letterbox ... because that's ... well ... black ... get it?

Of course you can break that "rule" but you could also put a giant guassian blur over all your footage so your whole movie looks like someone's POV who needs glasses.

Again criticing basic color correction is WAY different than "you should'nt use that magic bullet filter there".

 

[lovelymachine]

Again, I appreciate the feedback, completely.

Why did I do what I did? Simply because it seemed to be giving me the look I was after, which is a golden, sunbleached look, where all the colors, including the blacks are not as rich. As well, and this is harder to state in words, but I'll try... I wanted to try and make you feel the lens. With most films, especially well photographed films you feel you are looking into a world, something timeless. And that is sometimes a hard task with video as it is so immediate and life-like, and usually without mystery or style. So there are my aesthetic reasons.

Do I know what I am doing? Well, mostly. I've worked for sometime as an editor, most recently having a program nationally broadcast on PBS which some of you probably know is terribly stringent in it's delivery requirements and broadcast standards. Thus the monitor I have in studio is calibrated to that standard.

When shooting this particular footage I did not have the luxury of a monitor as I was way out on location with a crew of two, and I had to make due with the viewfinder and LCD. I was a little concerned about that, and about how pushing the black so much would work out. When I returned to the studio and reviewed the footage most of my concerns were lifted as the image held up "as is" and now since has given me latitude to bring the blacks down, and increase contrast a little without killing what I was originally going for.

Now, in review of my 'tests' and taking in consideration some of the comments made here. I can see as I go into production perhaps dialing back a bit.

I absolutely appreciate the comments, and obviously wouldn't have put this bit out there if I didn't. So I thank everyone, and say truly, that I appreciate this forum.

Warmly,

Gregory

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Again, I appreciate the feedback, completely.

Why did I do what I did? Simply because it seemed to be giving me the look I was after, which is a golden, sunbleached look, where all the colors, including the blacks are not as rich. As well, and this is harder to state in words, but I'll try... I wanted to try and make you feel the lens. With most films, especially well photographed films you feel you are looking into a world, something timeless. And that is sometimes a hard task with video as it is so immediate and life-like, and usually without mystery or style. So there are my aesthetic reasons.

Ok ... we'll accept a lot of things visually, but really low contrast is a harder one. I don't think you'll find many films that go for this deset blow out look that do it in low contrast. The contrast of darker black actually makes thinks look more blown out with the blown out whies roght next to it. I did feel like I was lookin through a dirty lens however.

Again -- great art direction, framing, etc.

Do I know what I am doing?

Never said or implied you didn't.

I was bristling at the implication that some of us were telling how your film should look, wich we weren't doinhg - we were questioning, for any reason other than trying to be helpful. And since some people around here know what we are doing it might be useful to listen. Again not directing that at you, but Kholi for telling John and I to stick it.

Well, mostly. I've worked for sometime as an editor, most recently having a program nationally broadcast on PBS which some of you probably know is terribly stringent in it's delivery requirements and broadcast standards. Thus the monitor I have in studio is calibrated to that standard.

We weren't actually saying that you didn't know how to calibrate a monitor. That was just John's first guess as to why it would be blown out. I pegged it right away as cranked master ped, though.

When shooting this particular footage I did not have the luxury of a monitor as I was way out on location with a crew of two, and I had to make due with the viewfinder and LCD. I was a little concerned about that, and about how pushing the black so much would work out. When I returned to the studio and reviewed the footage most of my concerns were lifted as the image held up "as is" and now since has given me latitude to bring the blacks down, and increase contrast a little without killing what I was originally going for.

You can actually shoot with it pretty low ... most people after shooting for a few months start pushing it in to negative numbers.

Again if you want to see a car scene shot with master ped at NEGATIVE 12 take a look at ODD Squad on my website. You'll see plenty of details in the black, although they are very black. The nice thing about the blown out look you are going for is that you can shoot with the Master Ped down - certainly at zero though I would recommend at least - 4 or so, and still get detail while having nice contrast since you are going for a blown out look. In other words you can just over expose.

While I would almost NEVER go above zero, because you just go into milk land, I just did recrently for a 2 second cuttaway of a black glove, held in a black gloved hand, by a guy wearing all black in front a a black wall. We didn't have enough light power with us so I had to crank it the master ped up to +4 to see all that black. But its only a two second shot and it will be color corrected heavily.

I'm not sure but it seems like you don't seem to have much interest in looking at outside sources but I will mention it again one last time. Devil's Rejects -- a very beautufully shot film by DP Phil Parma and he gets the blown out look with really crushed blacks.

Now, in review of my 'tests' and taking in consideration some of the comments made here. I can see as I go into production perhaps dialing back a bit.

I absolutely appreciate the comments, and obviously wouldn't have put this bit out there if I didn't. So I thank everyone, and say truly, that I appreciate this forum.

Warmly,

Gregory

My ire was not directed at you. Just pissed me off that
A) Kholi insinuated that we were telling how your film should look, when we were expressing our concern over an aestheric choice that you made
and
B) that out input was dismissed as unheplful (again not by you) when clearly it has been since you are rethinking pushing the the master ped way up.

Finally ...
HERE is a very helpful thread on the DVX and the MASTER PED
that you might want to check out as you do further tests.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=495774

 

[lovelymachine]

Hey thanks again. BTW, checked out your sight and your noir film. I dig. Very much.

I have a noir piece going as well. Shooting 35mm. You can check out those clips at http://thislovelymachine.com/clips.htm.

Again, thank you for the advice. I'm obviously looking into this. Funny you mention "Devil's Rejects" that's been on my mind as I approach this picture. I'll revisit.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

I agree.

Wtf is up with everyone telling people how their footage SHOULD look?

See Jack's post.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Lovely

I think you have the chops for real; I'm totally into your piece and your style

The levels (Legal IRE limtis) I'm not vibing on

But that's a dead horse (Jack can provide us with a dead horse gif I'm sure)

Anyways; welcome. I hope you stick around

 

[lovelymachine]

Lovely

I think you have the chops for real; I'm totally into your piece and your style

Anyways; welcome. I hope you stick around

Thanks. And, I imagine I will.

 

[slinks]

well to me it doesn't bother me so much. But maybe if I saw this on a TV and not my crappy monitor.

Some things look great for me on a my monitor but then when I put it on a DVD...jeez. Still need to train my eye or maybe calibrate my monitor properly. I've been asking some friends how they calibrate their monitors but they all shrug and go "i dunno".

I never use any positive settings on my master ped and always have gone negative usually around -5 to -10 but I may mess with some positive settings because I never even tried them b4 haha. I still have a ton to learn here and I learn more everytime people get criticism good or bad. this is really a great forum. I don't really know where I'm goin with this so I'll just end it here. HA!

here is an eyebite made concerning diff scene file settings with the dvx and of course with the master ped.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=41088

good job in getting a production started man. Hope it comes out the way you it to.

 

[Blaine]

I've got to agree with John and Jack on this (the master ped...

). I wasn't sure what I was getting into but you sucked me in and I want more...

Good job and I'd like to see more. :thumbsup:

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

I've got to agree with John and Jack on this (the master ped...

). I wasn't sure what I was getting into but you sucked me in and I want more...

Good job and I'd like to see more. :thumbsup:

What ? How dare you tell him how you think it should look :grin:

Hey thanks again. BTW, checked out your sight and your noir film. I dig. Very much.

mmm... you mean "ODD Squad"? "Noirleans" isn't online yet.

I have a noir piece going as well. Shooting 35mm. You can check out those clips at http://thislovelymachine.com/clips.htm.

Again, thank you for the advice. I'm obviously looking into this. Funny you mention "Devil's Rejects" that's been on my mind as I approach this picture. I'll revisit.

The Behind the Scenes is quite good.

Phil talks about the look that Rob Zombie was after and how they went about getting it. I'm scared of shooting film but I wouldn't be with someone like Phil. Since they were shooting film however, he would take stills with a digitak camera, photoshop the image and then send the color corrected location snapshot along with the reel to the film lab and say "make it look like that".

 

[bklyndv]

The 'rigidness' you speak of is purposeful, as the lines being delivered are so totally absurd that to go anything but straight would ruin the tone, and kill the humor.

OK, but it should be noted that there's a difference between what you call straight, and what I mean by rigid, or plastic. I see you're saying this is an "absurdist" piece, so I have a better understanding of what you're after. Still, I guess I prefer my absurdity a little subtler, like Rushmore, or any of the Colbert Report "Better Know a District" interviews. Both are absurd and yet, quite natural. What you have here is something altogether different. The woman's performance seems the most natural -- the least effort placed in her acting. If it's an aesthetic choice, go for it, but it's difficult for me to watch the piece and get lost in it when the machinery is so obvious.

 

[Kholi]

OK, but it should be noted that there's a difference between what you call straight, and what I mean by rigid, or plastic. I see you're saying this is an "absurdist" piece, so I have a better understanding of what you're after. Still, I guess I prefer my absurdity a little subtler, like Rushmore, or any of the Colbert Report "Better Know a District" interviews. Both are absurd and yet, quite natural. What you have here is something altogether different. The woman's performance seems the most natural -- the least effort placed in her acting. If it's an aesthetic choice, go for it, but it's difficult for me to watch the piece and get lost in it when the machinery is so obvious.

What about DOGMA?

Seems that it's more like that. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

 

[Kholi]

A) because its a poo pooing forum where people try to learn something
B) because the Dood posted his shi* for feedback
C) you wanna get barry green or Jarred on here and ask em about shooting with teh Master Ped at +12?

Blowing the highlights out is one thing but blowing the BLACKS OUT is ALMOST NEVER DONE.

AND quite frankly looks like a mistake and and color correction done on an impropperly calibrated monitor.

I' dare you to find one clip on DVXuser or from a professional film where the BLACKS are blown out to this degree.

John and I are a little confused by this choice.

Offered som pointers on it, while simultaneously saying that it may be a matter of taste but this is a highly unusual stylistic choice.

We also asked why on God's green Earth that anyone would shoot at plus 12 and haven't heard anything ... maybe we could learn something ... but so far radio silence

How you have 860 posts and don't know this is how things are done around here is a little mystifiying.

"here's my clip"
"wow looks great"
"actually the color correction doesn't match from this shot to that but still looks good"
"yeah I know it's just a rough cut"
or
"yeah I know I did that on purpose for artistic reasonns"
or
"or yeah I wanted it to be jarring there because of what the character is goinhg through"
or
"hey now that you mention it I should look at that again"

Why do you think we're pointing out what could be better and what looks like a mistake to us?

To make ourselves seem cool?

To keep an obviously very talented filmaker down?

You know I had the exact same reaction as John about the blacks before I read any of the posts ... and there's a couple of people around here that actually think John and I know WTF we are talking about.

If we looked at it and had that immediate reaction do you really think no producers or money people that see this as this guy shops it around might not have the same response? It's at least possible no?

I know how to give criticism. If you think the comments made in THIS THREAD are inapproriate or bagging on the guy then again, I don't know where you spent those 860 posts.

We're being honest and trying to help the guy out and have a discussion and maybe learn something if he has some great technical or stylistic or artistic justification for BLOWING the poo pooing blacks out.

HIS FILM IS NOT "BROADCAST SAFE" HIS LEVELS ARE OFF and not off in ways that are typically forgivable, like blowing out the whites or crushinhg the blacks. If you or anyone else posted something like interior footage that that was balanced for daylight, or exteriot footage that was all blue, a simmilat discussion would follow "Did you mean everything inside to look orange like that? What NLE are you on, you can still white balance it in post ... unless that's what you are going for ... if so why?"
That's a really different discussion than "I never would have used so much blue in the color correction" or something. One is purely aesthetic and one is a techincal error based on broadcast standards AND a certain agreeed upon vocabulary that most audiences iintrisically know. Even if it was "I just disagree aesthically" that's still valid completely approriate discussion.

We said we liked it. We see what looks like a mistake in the color correction. I guess next time we should just shut the poo poo up and let someone that matters tell him after he's locked his picture down and is trying to get a distribution deal or something,

So WTF is with bagging on people that are actually trying to be supportive by being honest and thought the project was exciting enough to warrant sharing what we thought about it.?

And as for SHOULD! John is right. The blackest part of your image 99.99999999999999999 timmes out of ten SHOULD be as black as your letterbox ... because that's ... well ... black ... get it?

Of course you can break that "rule" but you could also put a giant guassian blur over all your footage so your whole movie looks like someone's POV who needs glasses.

Again criticing basic color correction is WAY different than "you should'nt use that magic bullet filter there".

You're right, the criticism is way different than "you shouldn't use that magic bullet filter there."

Although he did say "This was the closest to the look I was going for."

Newp, nothing wrong with sharing tips on what seemed to be "incorrect".

:thumbup:

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

lol, i can't believe you quoted my whole rant.

you just got in my crosshairs right after I finished my to do list for my herofest short and pooped myself

:thumbsup:

 

[Kholi]

lol, i can't believe you quoted my whole rant.

you just got in my crosshairs right after I finished my to do list for my herofest short and pooped myself

:thumbsup:

Sure did, because I read the entire thing. You guys aren't wrong for trying to help him out.

Sometimes, people DO go overboard with telling others how their footage looks. That's what I've read in eight-hundred and sixty (860) posts on the boards.

Here again, though, there's nothing wrong with helping when it can't be discerned if it was an error or a creative decision.

 

[lovelymachine]

Still, I guess I prefer my absurdity a little subtler, like Rushmore, or any of the Colbert Report "Better Know a District" interviews.

I love both Rushmore and Colbert, though tonally they are not where my picture is at. Those are examples of extremely dry humor delivered mostly without emotion of any kind.

Think closer to "Big Lebowski" or "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", where the entire world in which these characters inhabit borders on the absurd.

Again, it's very hard to see from this one scene/clip it's relevance and connection to the whole, and how it will flow from the previous scenes. Also, it's still just a rough cut, the full nuance of it has not been fleshed out. This is about an hours worth of cutting just to get a flow and make sure the shot structure was working.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

 

[lovelymachine]

mmm... you mean "ODD Squad"? "Noirleans" isn't online yet.

Yeah, ODD SQUAD. I really enjoyed it.

 

[bklyndv]

I love both Rushmore and Colbert, though tonally they are not where my picture is at. Those are examples of extremely dry humor delivered mostly without emotion of any kind.

Think closer to "Big Lebowski" or "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", where the entire world in which these characters inhabit borders on the absurd.

OK, I get it more now. Thanks for sharing your comments.

 

[mystico]

Great, great film excerpts. You guys on this forum really inspire me! I loved the acting, the framing, the movement, the colours, all of it. I do wedding videos so I'm always amazed at you film guys' work. In scenes like this, I always wonder how long it takes to create a scene from so many different angles. It's obvious when you switch from angle 1 to angle 2, the camera that took angle 1 would be in the frame if not moved. So does this require the actors to say their lines during Angle 1 ... CUT ... Cue Cam2 ... Action? Constant cameras moving in and out of the scene and several takes of each scene? So you can't just set up a bunch of cams, do the scene while recording from all cams at once, then cut together in post, right?

And as for the cam-mount, I thought you were using a stickypod. The StickyPod is only $60-$130 depending upon the model, so why the price difference with the Gripper? Either way, I'd be so scared to strap a $3000+ camera on the outside of a car--where I can't even reach and grab it if it begins to fall. I know these things are built to stick like a booger, but it's just the idea. Just like kids riding on the backs of motorcycles. I always imagine the kid letting go and flying off the back. Just my imagination.

Anyway, I can't wait to see the full feature!!

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

..... So you can't just set up a bunch of cams, do the scene while recording from all cams at once, then cut together in post, right?

I just tried this and it took more time to light the scene so that it lookd good from all angles and so that nobody's camera was in the shot (especially when using fixed focal length 35mm adaptors).

Also most people just have one cam.

But also ... there's a reason gingudo budget movies still often shoot single cam, and that's lighting. You just can't ligh two or three shots as well as you can light one. A lot of film light is and should be slight of hand bullshit. It's not just doing a master setup for the scene, its adding a light in the closeup to bring out the face that wasn't there in the wide shot because the audience will never notice the lack of continuity, but will notice the connection with the actor. So you can't add that light if you have three cameras rolling.

But I was just on a Tony Scott picture and he did two set ups for the scene and covered each with 4 cameras!

And as for the cam-mount, I thought you were using a stickypod. The StickyPod is only $60-$130 depending upon the model, so why the price difference with the Gripper? Either way, I'd be so scared to strap a $3000+ camera on the outside of a car--where I can't even reach and grab it if it begins to fall. I know these things are built to stick like a booger, but it's just the idea. Just like kids riding on the backs of motorcycles. I always imagine the kid letting go and flying off the back. Just my imagination.

Anyway, I can't wait to see the full feature!!

Regarding a car mount -- I use stickypod for my stuff and actually gigged out for the BBC where I mounted a Sony Z1, alittle consumer hi def that they were going to edit in with Varicam, on the side of a 1957 checker cab with my sticky pod, lol.

but the the thing is you are imaginging one system. when you do a car mount you have multiple systems in place so that the camera doesn't fall.

Namely safety lines and Gaff tape.

Depending on where your camera is it could get banged around a bit by being dropped 18 inches into the car door but never a pile of plastic and glass on the side of the road.

Even the dropping to the side should never happen with the proper rigging and proper use of the car mount (its cleaned, its not extremly hot or cold out, the car surface is clean, its premoistend slightly).

But you need gaff to get the angle exactly right and make sure the angle doesn't slip while driving and that should act as a back up system and then you have the camera tethered with nylon cable or something as well.