Using a flat profile to get more to work with

A

Alpha Beta Omega

Veteran
These are two screen shots with ungraded using my flat profile and graded in Premiere and Magic Bullet. I find this to be a good way to shoot since I can control highlights and where clipping will occur in post rather than being stuck with how it's shot. I expose to a maximum of 95% to give me a little bit of headroom.

View attachment 34665

View attachment 34666

Flat/cine settings:

Detail/V detail: -4
Chroma: -5
Gamma: Cinelike D
Matrix: Norm2

everything else at neutral.
 
Good job on the color grading, looks great. Me and a friend were just having a debate between shooting things flat and creating a look in post vs creating the look in camera. I personally don't see anything in your graded shot that you couldn't get close to in camera, with minor color adjustments in post, saving yourself a great deal of time in the process. I see so many people shooting flat profiles these days on DSLR's and the AF100 and ask myself why? With a raw format I understand, but on a 4:2:0 codec I don't see much advantage to doing all the work in post. What advantages do you feel shooting flat offers vs in the camera?
 
I don't understand the obsession with super-flat as well, especially with the AF100. I've noticed the the codec doesn't hold up well when you put an s-curve on it so I get the contrast look and colors as close as I can in-camera. My preset looks like "Neutral" on the Canon DSLRs. I feel that look has a nice range in post.
 
Yes you could shoot with a look in the camera and I do this very often but the flat settings are great to preserve the footage to do whatever I like in grading.

It's harder to lift blacks without getting noise than to lower it in grading. Same thing with highlights, I can set as high or low as I like without introducing more noise than necessary. I also think codecs doesn't do to well with levels near black so having them a bit higher and crush in grading can avoid some noise or preserve discarded details in shadow areas that the codec doesn't do to well. There's gotta be a reason the Alexa shoots in super flat so why not for the AF even thou it's and 8 bit camera?
 
The flat look gives one an extra measure of safety, IMHO. If you crush your blacks in camera, and then realize that some portion of your shadows need to show more detail, your S.O.L.. But, if you shoot flat, then you're good to go.

I've tried setting up the perfect "look" in camera, and I almost always end up grading these shots anyway. For me, flat is the way to go.
 
I agree, better to underexpose 1/4 to 1/2 stop than deal with blown out highlights in high contrast situations. Love Magic Bullet.
 
Shooting flat comes from the concept of a fat negative in film; grab as much information as possible so you have more to work with later.

There are plenty of old school film guys however that believe that it should be as close as humanly possible on your negative and only the most minimal work should be done in printing.

Digital colorists love it when you "shoot flat." But then you should really use a colorist of course.

Whether or not it works for you is more a matter of the type of job you're working on. If you have the time and budget to really work on color then it can make a difference. The most important thing is not to blow out the highlights in any case.
 
With the AF100 connected to an external monitor you have more than adequate controls to monitor your exposure, not sure why you need an extra measure of safety that creates a great deal more work for yourself unless you don't trust your tools or are shooting in bizzare scenarios. I'f I was paying a DP I wouldn't want him to tell me I shoot it this way and charge you an extra days work because sometimes I mess up. That doesn't seem like a viable reason as to why it is preferred.

I also don't think having a backup that you can create custom looks for in the future is a viable reason either. Isn't the look/feel/appearance of your project an integral decision made by the DP and producer early in the pre production process?

It's also very hard for me to believe that pushing this 4:2:0 footage around that far in post leaves you with a cleaner, less noisy image than the straight camera with slight adjustment (ALEXAs and REDs don't count, again its specifically shooting flat on 4:2:0 codec I'm asking about). Are these truly the only reasons why everyone these days shoots super flat? What am I missing?
 
I dont shoot super flat. I shoot for what I want to see and what the client expects to see.

I would not want to have to post in my 'looks' and I would not want the post processing time for renders etc. Currently I can do total CC and grade even with secondaries...Real time.

It's also very hard for me to believe that pushing this 4:2:0 footage around that far in post leaves you with a cleaner, less noisy image than the straight camera with slight adjustment
Click to expand...

Me too!

Though...I dont disregard what editman has done. Valid experiment IMHO ...But ... I cant see the point of doing it really.
 
IMHO, and as already mentioned, it's the right approach for some work, for some people. More headroom, but more work. Coming from photography, sure, I can pretty much nail it in camera shooting JPG, but I like to have the little something extra that RAW provides (despite the size and processing premiums).
 
editman said:
There's gotta be a reason the Alexa shoots in super flat so why not for the AF even thou it's and 8 bit camera?
Click to expand...

But that's the only reason you need. Cameras like the Alexa and Red give you that raw data that gives you the ability to shoot super flat so you can push it far in post. The AF100 is not an Alexa, they're two different types of cameras. Applying the techniques and principles on a camera that costs 15x less won't yield you the same results. Trying to push an 8-bit superflat image will just result into a noiser image that's even more prone to banding. Can you fix it in post? Sure, you can put a layer of grain to hide it but for most projects I work on, its not worth the additional render time. I'll get the look as close as I can in camera and tweak it post. With proper exposure, you'll get a nice clean image that will color nicely and you won't have to deal with additional artifact and noise that come with trying to push the codec to places it wasn't designed to go to.
 
If shooting in cinelike D is consider to be bad on the AF why would it be an option? I don't think you can push AVCHD 4:0:0 to far but cinelike D should be fine.
 
editman said:
These are two screen shots with ungraded using my flat profile and graded in Premiere and Magic Bullet. I find this to be a good way to shoot since I can control highlights and where clipping will occur in post rather than being stuck with how it's shot. I expose to a maximum of 95% to give me a little bit of headroom.

View attachment 34665

View attachment 34666

Flat/cine settings:

Detail/V detail: -4
Chroma: -5
Gamma: Cinelike D
Matrix: Norm2

everything else at neutral.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if the original sample image was a very good one to work with. No offense but the original image is grainy. Could be from .jpg compression or what not. The kids faces don't have much light on them, so when you brought back the darks the detail really disappeared and the grain enhanced. I do really like the way the fabric looks. Nice texture and light on the ripples.
I like to have my settings close to what I like in final output, blacks not crushed and keep highlights from clipping, and its smooth sailing during the edit. Minor CC and grading. But every shoot is different, so knowing what is going on in post, helps you make the decision as to how to setup your camera.
 
Last edited:
editman said:
If shooting in cinelike D is consider to be bad on the AF why would it be an option? I don't think you can push AVCHD 4:0:0 to far but cinelike D should be fine.
Click to expand...

The only time i would use CINE-D is if I was gonna use all that noise and grain as an aesthetic bonus. Something like 28 Days Later or Saving Private Ryan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top