Whats wrong with this picture??

[ryan brown]

I was location test shooting the other night, and when I got home and looked at the footage, I was suprised to see it looked like sh!t. I'm not sure what went wrong. I was shooting at factory F6 settings, with no filters, at dusk. I went out the next night with my polarized filter on, and it came out much better... but still not the quality I'm looking for. On the second day, I think it looked better because of the timing. The sun JUST went down over the horizon, when on the first day, it was still above the horizon line. I don't want to try and shoot this thing in the 15 minute's of decent light after the sun goes down, so any suggestions would be appreciated.

Here's the first day's shots.

They look washed out, noisy, and soft. I'm going for vivid, crisp, and clear. These are NOT color corrected or played with in post at all. Notice on the last one the horrible noise in the shadows of the face, and the overall soft edges.

Here's one shot of the second day shoot, color corrected. It looks much better, but as I said above, it was shot just as the sun went down, and that light only last 15 minutes. EDIT... I had to take down resolution a bit for uploading, but it still looks better than the first 4.

 

[dustino]

For one, the first pics are plain old out of focus which is the first problem.

As for the noise, did you have the gain turned on? It sure looks like it. And did you have the iris fully opened? (Per Barry's book, I never open past 2.8)

That's my guess (correct me if I'm wrong).

Improper focus, gain on, and wide open iris.

EDIT: The good news is that your last grab looks SO MUCH better. Skin tones still look a little red on my monitor, though.

 

[ryan brown]

No gain. ND filter was on, setting my iris at 4.0 - 9.0 with the various shots.

Yeah... the skin tone's are a little red. My monitors suck, and it was just a quick test, so I wasn't too worried about getting it perfect.

More suggestions??

 

[novelt]

which ND setting? don't know about using 9.0 on the iris though. that's gonna be dark especially with the ND.

were the F6 settings the same between the first 4 and the last?

 

[Kevin Dorsey]

I would try using regular Cinegamma and opening the iris up. The first few grabs look underexposed, which always yields more noise. Then bounce some fill onto the other side of the face. Just my 2 pesos.

-Kevin

 

[andy_starbuck]

Ideas...

They look underexposed to me. If you've been using autoiris, set the exposure and then go to manual and give it an extra stop or two and see what you get.

Make sure you are doing a white balance against a standard white object frequently. If you are shooting close to sundown then its a moving target. The intensity and color of the light changes rapidly at sundown.

Also, I've seen this happen with Cinegamma sometimes. It loves light and under some conditions it can shift everything darker.

There are a lot of things you can do with the scene files to completely take control of the image and lighten it, including changing the master ped and the autoiris.

If you've been shooting okay up to now and this is new, then check the scene files and make sure they didn't get corrupted or misconfigured somehow.

 

[Noel Evans]

The first day shots have some dark ugly shadows, the white balance seems off plus focus. A bounce card would take the hard shadows away and give him a more 3d feel.

The second day, whilst it has fill from some source its too much. Looks like he has been roto'd on there.

I would throw a polariser on, try to keep your iris at the high focus end... keeo the sun like the first but then add some bounce on to the left of his face (the right side in the pic).

A piece of white cardboard well positioned... stuck to light stand will work as long as there is no wind. Also these are LOW action shots so you can keep your shutter speed around 1/48th. A mattebox would help also in a shot like this.

 

[ryan brown]

Thanks.

ND was on 1/64 because of how bright it was out there. Only time I was at 9.0 (iris) was when I was shooting towards the sun to capture the lake (didn't post a pic). While I was shooting the subject, I was around 4.0.

Same settings were used on both days. Factory F6, except I pushed the master ped up to -2, cause I like to play with the blacks in post, and I figured that would give me a little more to work with.

I plan on using plenty of bounce for fill on the "real" shoot... but since it was just him and I, I didn't have anyone to hold it (notice one sitting on the right side, doing no good). I also plan on using a mirror bounce placed behind him, and bounceing quite a bit of light towards his backside for a sharp highlight around the edges (think Cameron Crowe).

I'll try Cinigamma on the next test, and see what happens. I'll also open up a bit and so I'm not underexposed. The only problem I have with that is that the sky's just get COMPLETELY blown out. I wish I had a gradient ND to try out, but I don't... I also wish I had a matte box, cause I know it'd come in handy here, but, again, I don't.

The light was changing considerably every ten minutes or so due to the time of day (sunset), and I will be white balanceing constantly to compensate.

No auto iris for me. I'm always on full manual, and usually with custom scene settings, but since this is my first serious attempt at an outdoor location, I went with factory F6 (except master ped) assuming it would give me a good quality picture, and I could work my "mojo" in post

I do have a polarized, and I will be using it for sure. I was shooting at 1/60th... but I'll give 1/48th a try and see what happens.

Thanks for the input, guys. I'll go back out to location tomorrow night (monday) and try out some of the suggestions recommended.

-brown

p.s. I've done music vids, commercials, corperate sh!t, weddings, but this is MY first short. I'll be sure to post when it's finished.

p.s.s that's also why I'm getting picky with the quality.

 

[Rick Meyer]

Brown-

Did you check your detail settings? My buddy borrowed one of my cams for a corporate gig and when I got it back the footage looked a lot like your first shots...grainy...muddy...and nothing spectacular. Turns out, he had the detail settings up way too low....I brought them down and ahhh, looked great again.

Rick

 

[Noel Evans]

Thanks for the input, guys. I'll go back out to location tomorrow night (monday) and try out some of the suggestions recommended.

How did you go?

 

[ryan brown]

How did you go?

Found a new location, adjusted settings, and shooting next week (hopefully)... Here's a few grabs from a very quick [new] location test. Couple have been touched up a bit, couple raw, I believe. My only issue now is that bright yellow picnic table. It really pops, and I'm not digging it at all. Any suggestions?? or am I going to have to go out and "borrow" a picnic table from another park?

And just for fun... a test with a new macro lens. No CC done at all on this one.

p.s. Thanks for the interest, nc... Projects on hold cause I just shot (yesterday, actually) a promo for circuit city, and I've got to get it to them as soon as possible.

-brown

 

[Noel Evans]

I think the way your throwing these images out from your timeline is screwing with them. But then that macro shot is very crisp indeed. Good luck with it all anyway mmate. I like the colours better in these. Although I would perhaps just cool them a fraction within the camera itself...not make them a cool look just cool it down a little.

 

[krick]

Hey you have the same problem that I have... You have a green line at the top of your frame:

your picture

and here is mine:

See what I mean ? It's at the left side on mine...

 

[The Machinist]

What macro lens did you use?

thats pretty sharp.

 

[Ogrus]

For one, the first pics are plain old out of focus which is the first problem.


Please explain what is out of focus.... i dont see what you see
(aint no expert but willing to learn)

 

[ryan brown]

1) Yeah... I think I am losing a bit of quality with my "export still image" settings. How do you guys do it?

2) Macro Lens cost me $30 for a kit of 4 from ebay. Do a search for 72mm macro, and you'll find plenty. And, yes, it's proven itself to be much better than expected.

3) On the first picture's (of page 1) notice how blurry/fuzzy the faces are. That's what's out of focus. My focal point wasn't where it should have been.



I'm still not understanding the ugly shadows I've got going on. With controlled lighting, I can get a near perfect picture every time. Out on location, I don't get it. Shadows are horrible, detail is lost, and the picture just doesn't look NEAR as good as I know it could be. Hell, I've shot outdoor weddings that look 10 times better than these pictures. What's going on?

 

[MiniMan]

Have you tried shooting without Cine Gamma? It tends to mess up my pictures in some strange way.

 

[andy_starbuck]

Check your Master Pedestal setting. The loss of detail in the dark areas of the images with the trees looks like MP is too low.

Also, Cine-D gives more mid range latitude for post, whereas Cine-V gives better looking video without gamma/color correction. I've noticed that Cine-D really makes images look gray and muddy sometimes.