Yay or Nay? Need opinions

D

DM_rider

Veteran
I've been messing around with different scene files and grading, and I wanted to get some thoughts on this look.

Natural light was coming in from a window. I think I'm going to knock down the detail level even more in camera. I had detail at -1 and coring at +2. Master ped at -12.

FilmicTest.jpg
 
Hey DM ...

I would try knocking down the light in the window a little first before loosing any more detail. It would take a bit of the harshness out of the highlights. Besides, if his complexion really bothers you, you could soften problem areas in post and still keep his eyes sharp.

My 2 cents.
 
This footage actually isn't for anything in particular. I was just trying out some different ideas I had as far as a general look I may use in the future.
 
Yeah, diffusing or toning down the key light through the window would help.

See the highlight right under his sideburn or where his sideburn would be? That harshness is a telltale sign of video vs. film (and not as pleasing a video image as you can go for) Remember these cams only have 4-6 stops of latitude from brightest to darkest and you're just outside of it there.

But like the contrast and detail level. Remember film is 4 times sharper. So that's not really the culprit IMHO, it's the harsh roll off of the highlights.
 
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
Yeah, diffusing or toning down the key light through the window would help.

See the highlight right under his sideburn or where his sideburn would be? That harshness is a telltale sign of video vs. film (and not as pleasing a video image as you can go for) Remember these cams only have 4-6 stops of latitude from brightest to darkest and you're just outside of it there.

But like the contrast and detail level. Remember film is 4 times sharper. So that's not really the culprit IMHO, it's the harsh roll off of the highlights.
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing that out guys. I'll keep that in mind.

I've been reading that the HPX has about 8 stops of latitude, and like you said, 4-6, which is right?
also, is there a way to stay within the cameras dynamic range based off what the waveform is showing? or should I invest in a light meter?
 
Last edited:
4 is from the HVX200
the 200a and 170 do have greater lattitude
but in any case I think 4-6 is the stops that the camera records in an aesthetically pleasing way, with smoother shift from the darkest to lightest, not necessearily all the information that it will record over a giiven range of stops. But really, in this level of detail I am not the best person to ask. Let me see if I can get Timur here.
 
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
4 is from the HVX200
the 200a and 170 do have greater lattitude
but in any case I think 4-6 is the stops that the camera records in an aesthetically pleasing way, with smoother shift from the darkest to lightest, not necessearily all the information that it will record over a giiven range of stops. But really, in this level of detail I am not the best person to ask. Let me see if I can get Timur here.
Click to expand...

haha that'd be great. I feel like it's all about to click for me, just a few holes that need to be filled.
 
The HVX has more than 4 stops...

6-7 is more like it...

I dont see a problem here though... nothing closing the iris a 1/2 stop wouldnt solve.... Remeber if youre shooting Cinelike modes of gamma, they have the knee set at 80%. essentially at all costs keep skin tones below 80. dont let it touch 80.... because it will roll the data off to white at that point... And you wind up with a weird highlight....

Heres an example of that happening...

www.timurcivan.com/downloads/REEDS.mov The guys is lightly over exposedin CinelikeD and thus all the detail in his shirt and fore head are gone. i had to B&W the scene to make it look acceptable.

the window light is already diffused.... IF anything , change the actor position and camera position to take greatest advantage of the qualities of the given light....

this is a single source esposure... the key is placement of camera, light and subject.

n813401445748716648742.jpg
 
I would disagree. Yeah the shot you are showing is blown out, but film always looks good. The shot DM posted is not blown out, but the harsh highlights on the side of the guys face don't roll off in a pleasing way the way the shot you posted does even though it's blown out, or in a way that doesn't scream video. The shot you posted screams film because it handles the transition so well. Lowering the exposure on the face so that it's not so hot at it's hottest point would solve no?
 
Here's shots from Timur's work.
Notice the natural softness to the highlights.
Only in the shot of the bald guy is there a very small area near the top back of his head that begins to roll of harshly. This is what I'm talking bout controlling.
phonefocus.jpg


tub.jpg


blamchard-door.jpg


burtonpad.jpg


burton.jpg


blanchard-detective.jpg


hedges.jpg


huh-.jpg
 
TimurCivan said:
The HVX has more than 4 stops...

6-7 is more like it...

I dont see a problem here though... nothing closing the iris a 1/2 stop wouldnt solve.... Remeber if youre shooting Cinelike modes of gamma, they have the knee set at 80%. essentially at all costs keep skin tones below 80. dont let it touch 80.... because it will roll the data off to white at that point... And you wind up with a weird highlight....

Heres an example of that happening...

www.timurcivan.com/downloads/REEDS.mov The guys is lightly over exposedin CinelikeD and thus all the detail in his shirt and fore head are gone. i had to B&W the scene to make it look acceptable.

the window light is already diffused.... IF anything , change the actor position and camera position to take greatest advantage of the qualities of the given light....
Click to expand...

If I were in a situation where I was shooting with a window in my shot, and wanted it to blow out, is there any way to make it a little more visually pleasing? or does it come back to video is video, that's what you get.
 
Last edited:
if u wanted to blow it out then open up the iris a little bit more then what you had when you shot the clip above but yeah, video is video. lol
 
Look at Geoff Reisner's fantastic work in Fat Monster's Where the Heart Lies.
See how he managed the light from windows, etc. There's only a few frames that really tip their hand as video to me (and not in an ugly way) - the guys on the balcony I go back and forth on (this was a no budget short,a silk could have maybe softened the daylight on them) and some of the harsher highlights on her face (1st shot and 5th from the bottom), but here it still looks good to me, more of a hard light Blood Simple look.

Not saying that you can fool people into thinking it's film. Just saying by watching extremes in the high end you can not remind them that it's video and have a more pleasing image.

grabs.jpg


grabs2.jpg
[/IMG]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top