Jump to content

Close
Photo

Ideal settings for GH3? (color grading and a first example)

color grading settings gh3
- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply

#41
GravitateMediaGroup

Posted 19 January 2013 - 04:27 PM

GravitateMediaGroup

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 155 posts
  • LocationIndiana/Kentucky

@axel

My suggestion is to create a preset for only the clips that were shot at the same time.  If you shot 10 clips within 15 minutes the lighting will not have changed that much to cause a difference.  don't use the same preset for clips shot 6 hours earlier, the day before and the day of. 


  • Mutmencistmic likes this

#42
Axel

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:22 PM

Axel

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,013 posts
  • LocationGermany

- how do I add grain? 

 

Simply by >effects >stylize >film grain >realistic grain (as opposed to iMovie grain) >amount between 5 - 12%

 

BTW & OT: With Motion 5 as a developer tool for FCP X effects, much more could be rigged. So for example the complex filters of the 'Film Convert' plugin.  It takes into account that analog color film stock is composed of three layers of colors (not channels) resp. layers of colored grain, magenta, cyan and yellow, with different characteristics, depending on the emulsions speed, and that the three layers have a slightly different focus. My opinion is, that mimicking a certain film stock is useless though, because we live in a digital world, and we only fine-tune a look with such filters.

 

- how do I export as ProRes master

 

You make the project setting ProRes or ProResHQ, then you export as 'original'. Or specifically ProRes (Compressor preset, since 10.6 to be saved in the share menu).

 

- and encode this precisly to x264. Sorry for being a bit lazy, I haven't got time and access opportunity to try it out with FCP-X right now.

 

I think the best way is to install the free MpegStreamclip, download the free X264 QT-encoder-component (I use this one). You open the master with MpegStreamclip, then you export as mp4 and choose 'X264 encoder'. 

 

If you downscale 1080 to 720 for vimeo, check 'better downscaling' in MSC, avoids scaling artifacts (moire!

 

@axel

My suggestion is to create a preset for only the clips that were shot at the same time.  If you shot 10 clips within 15 minutes the lighting will not have changed that much to cause a difference ...

 

 

Okay

, if you film on a grey day. But with the sun as a light source, everything can change dramatically within minutes. Or if you change the camera position. 

 

 

 
 
 

Either you care - or you don't

#43
GravitateMediaGroup

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:21 PM

GravitateMediaGroup

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 155 posts
  • LocationIndiana/Kentucky

@axel

 

you are trying to hard, end of discussion 

from now on, you don't worry about my post, and i won't worry about yours

 

you lost all credibility with me in 3 words "when you film"  .......for future reference, don't use the word "film" when discussing 

digital cameras.  it's slap in the face to the pioneers.



#44
Axel

Posted 24 January 2013 - 03:31 PM

Axel

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,013 posts
  • LocationGermany

you lost all credibility with me in 3 words "when you film"  .......for future reference, don't use the word "film" when discussing 

digital cameras.  it's slap in the face to the pioneers.

 

So noted. Maybe that 'filming' instead of 'recording video' (or what?) is a germanism. The sloppyness of my native language is notorious. I didn't mean to imply anything. Or did you make a joke? Sigh, I am lost with the niceties of english ...


Either you care - or you don't

#45
GravitateMediaGroup

Posted 24 January 2013 - 04:38 PM

GravitateMediaGroup

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 155 posts
  • LocationIndiana/Kentucky

shoot or shot works

 

i've made a promise to myself from here on out, when I see people use the word "film" when talking about digital to correct them, so that they can continue to pass it on and eventually everone will be on the same page ; )



#46
Wit

Posted 25 January 2013 - 08:20 AM

Wit

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 176 posts

@Axel thanxs I'm already working with MPG streamclip so I try that setting.

 

@Gravi... Yesterday I went to a film festival and I bet all those films where digital so ...
I also do use the word film in some cases. Let's not talk words though and stay o the topic, Who cares if we call it video making or filming. Everybody does understand what we're talking about!   ;)


  • nahua likes this

#47
GravitateMediaGroup

Posted 25 January 2013 - 03:11 PM

GravitateMediaGroup

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 155 posts
  • LocationIndiana/Kentucky

@blanche

you are missing my point, it's a bad trend going around that needs to stop

it's a slap in the face  to the pioneers, and "film makers" that are still doing everything they can to keep film alive.

 

at the film festivel, in what way were the movies being shown?

if it was digital transfered to film, I would give it somewhat more credit being "viewed on film"

if movies were shown on a projector hooked to a laptop, then it was called a "movie festivel"



#48
Wit

Posted 25 January 2013 - 07:33 PM

Wit

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 176 posts

@Gravi..

I'm sorry not a native english speaker and yeah therefore not getting your point.
The festival was the International Film Festival in Rotterdam....http://www.filmfesti...tterdam.com/en/
And in the Netherlands that is called FILM. When making a video, you also use filming in dutch. 

 

But let's refrain from names and words and return to the film/video/making in this forum!

 

Blanche -
Now a bit confused what to use for what avoiding slapping in faces ...



#49
Axel

Posted 25 January 2013 - 09:29 PM

Axel

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,013 posts
  • LocationGermany

A new name should be found. I don't like the name 'video' personally, because it derives from an unfitting historical background. From when 'video' meant recordings of events, not creating and editing images.

 

But the name 'film' will only cease to be generally used once the videomakers stop looking for cinematic travesty. And this will take a long time, unless you and the other 'pioneers' are just about to change this.

 

On wednesday, a local TV-team made a report about my restaurant, with a C500 and a 5D. I didn't see the finished video yet, but I saw clearly that they tried hard to make it look like film. Everybody does, if I didn't miss the latest trend.


Either you care - or you don't

#50
Andrew Reid

Posted 25 January 2013 - 10:50 PM

Andrew Reid

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 4,087 posts

I did some research on the noise grain in 50Mbit long-gop vs 72Mbit ALL-I

 

Actually the noise grain is the same in 50Mbit 24p and 72Mbit 24p. But it is different between 50Mbit 50/60p and 72mbit 24p especially in motion. Less noise in the 50/60p codec.

 

But the difference is quite small. 50p is on the left versus 25p (I have PAL camera hence EU frame rates).

 

gh3-50p-vs-25p.jpg


  • nahua likes this

#51
GravitateMediaGroup

Posted 25 January 2013 - 11:02 PM

GravitateMediaGroup

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 155 posts
  • LocationIndiana/Kentucky

A new name should be found. I don't like the name 'video' personally, because it derives from an unfitting historical background. From when 'video' meant recordings of events, not creating and editing images.

 

But the name 'film' will only cease to be generally used once the videomakers stop looking for cinematic travesty. And this will take a long time, unless you and the other 'pioneers' are just about to change this.

 

On wednesday, a local TV-team made a report about my restaurant, with a C500 and a 5D. I didn't see the finished video yet, but I saw clearly that they tried hard to make it look like film. Everybody does, if I didn't miss the latest trend.

 

People want to emulate the look of film with digital cameras because it's WAY cheaper than shooting with film to begin with.  People want the aesthetics of film, not the prices that comes with it.  

 

I never said to use the word "video", but shoot or shot.  Then if somebody was to ask what you "shot on", you would reply "digital" or possibly even "digital HD" or possibly even "digital 4k"

 

So no, it won't take long for people to drop the use of "I filmed this" because they will be PROUD to let you know  "I 4K'd it" lol



#52
Sean Cunningham

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:43 AM

Sean Cunningham

    Pixel Cowboy

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 979 posts
  • LocationAustin, Texas

The term "film" does and has had meaning beyond a direct reference to the physical medium, be it emulsion or print.  This isn't new.  Not within the actual "film industry" or language itself.  

 

If someone said "I 4K'd it" around me that would be an instant red flag for "noob".



#53
GravitateMediaGroup

Posted 26 January 2013 - 01:36 AM

GravitateMediaGroup

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 155 posts
  • LocationIndiana/Kentucky

@burnetrhoades

shhhh, i'm trying to make "I 4K'd it" the new cool thing to say

 

and I will disagree, that there are TONS of people to take this to heart, myself included.

if it wasn't shot on FILM, it wasn't FILMED.

if you are watching a movie in a theater that was shot on digital, we can just say "motion picture"



#54
Sean Cunningham

Posted 26 January 2013 - 02:11 AM

Sean Cunningham

    Pixel Cowboy

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 979 posts
  • LocationAustin, Texas

@burnetrhoades

shhhh, i'm trying to make "I 4K'd it" the new cool thing to say

...

 

Say no more, wink-wink, nudge-nudge...

 

 

Still, it's 100% valid to say you watched or made a "film" whether you used celluloid or not.



#55
GravitateMediaGroup

Posted 26 January 2013 - 02:38 AM

GravitateMediaGroup

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 155 posts
  • LocationIndiana/Kentucky

try telling Tarintino you just watch "the new Film, The Hobbit" and see what he says lol



#56
Sean Cunningham

Posted 26 January 2013 - 02:46 AM

Sean Cunningham

    Pixel Cowboy

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 979 posts
  • LocationAustin, Texas

He isn't often given to pedantic pseudo-intellectualism but it doesn't change the fact of the term's common usage in this way predating digital anything.  Even if he did decide to eat a brain tumor for breakfast, the argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny...or even a dictionary.


  • zaz likes this

#57
GravitateMediaGroup

Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:11 AM

GravitateMediaGroup

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 155 posts
  • LocationIndiana/Kentucky

the dictionary lost credibility with me when it started using internet slang words like LOL and BRB along with "aint" lol



#58
Sean Cunningham

Posted 26 January 2013 - 04:08 AM

Sean Cunningham

    Pixel Cowboy

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 979 posts
  • LocationAustin, Texas

Well, good luck with your campaign "taking it back" and all.


  • zaz likes this

#59
Axel

Posted 26 January 2013 - 06:17 AM

Axel

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,013 posts
  • LocationGermany
To 4k sth would be least telling verb for what one actually tries to achieve. I am as much rooted in analog audio-visual communications as possible and used to think of digital video as the poor mans film. Now that celliloid/acetate/polyester are history, there will be new things to explore, and within ten or twenty years from now the 'films' ( completely irrelevant at which resolution) might no longer resemble those of today. Pioneers will use techniques that are digital-only and add new vocabulary to the language.
Either you care - or you don't

#60
GravitateMediaGroup

Posted 26 January 2013 - 06:29 AM

GravitateMediaGroup

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 155 posts
  • LocationIndiana/Kentucky

thats why it was such a big deal the hobbit was 48

 

and i'm not trying to "take back" anything

I will just laugh at those that call digital "film" If Peter Jackson is calling The Hobbit a "film" he is an idiot in my book.

not to mention the hobbit was garbage







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: color grading, settings gh3

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users