Jump to content

hyalinejim

Members
  • Posts

    572
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    hyalinejim got a reaction from Mmmbeats in What are the 'correct' skintone values in IRE for HLG acquisition?   
    I also do a lot of run and gun type stuff and don't have time to be faffing about with getting perfect exposure. I take a glance at the exposure meter (with the camera pointed towards the ground rather than the sky), the zebras (set to 80 so I can see what's actually clipping in the file) and sometimes I switch on the waveform for a quick look at that. And I also base a decision on the LCD or viewfinder (it's quite easy to see if things are overexposed but underexposed can still look fine, so it can be misleading).
    So I end up with a variety of exposure levels but I'm usually within one stop. Sometimes it's two stops, which is pushing it a bit, but that's life!
    When it comes to colour correction, having something two stops off in V-Log can be a real pain in something like Lumetri in Premiere. The exposure slider does not behave like, say, the exposure slider in Lightroom when adjusting RAW. So the best way around that I've found is using an ACES workflow in After Effects, where as if by magic you can reliable make RAW-like (ie; rational and consistent) adjustments to exposure, contrast and white balance. And if I'm feeding the signal into a good LUT, then that's all I need.
    It's an extra step in the workflow though, so usually I don't bother. Or don't need to, if I've already got exposure and WB quite close while shooting, so that Lumetri doesn't fudge things too much. I imagine that in Resolve it's possible to make proper adjustments to Log or HLG (so that if I underexpose 2 stops I just need to add +2 in post and I get the same image, but noisier, than if I had exposed correctly)... but I haven't made that move to Resolve yet.
    But it's a real pleasure to be able to do that when needed. Here's an example of the same scene shot at correct exposure with daylight WB, and then 3 stops under with coolest WB. This would be a nightmare to correct with conventional methods but with ACES it's very, very close. There is a red tint in the darkest areas of the corrected underexposed shot, but I think that's due to red chroma noise being boosted.

  2. Like
    hyalinejim reacted to Mmmbeats in What are the 'correct' skintone values in IRE for HLG acquisition?   
    Yes, that's more or less the technique I used, though middle grey has a slightly different reference point for HLG (38 IRE is what I used).
    The way I usually do exposure is by looking at the talent and figuring out where I want their skintone relative to 'normal'.  This is influenced by whether or not they are in shadow, whether it's a moody scene, the shade of their skin, etc.  I rarely drop it more than a stop below 'normal'.
    Once that is established, I take a look at the highlights and whether they need protecting.  If they do, I make some kind of compromise - either I allow some elements to blow out, or I allow the skin tone to drop further than I would like.  This just depends on the aesthetic of the shot (for example I might let quite a big window blow out, but I would hardly ever let a big section of sky blow out).
    Finally, if I think there is important stuff going on in the shadows I might make an adjustment to try to help them a bit (while making sure to continue to protect the highlights).  I very often skip this stage and just let the shadow area fall where it may.
    Sounds long winded written down, but all of that happens very quickly and automatically.  I prefer to use false colour, but am happy to use zebras if that's all I have access to.  As you say, spot metering is a really good alternative too (though you have to work out over/under values to make it work on most of the cameras I use).
    No way am I faffing about with a grey card - I want a technique that works the same across events, doc, fiction, etc. (obviously there are somewhat different approaches required for each).
    If the skintones are in the ballpark of where you want them in the final grade then I find the post route is a lot more straightforward.  You're also less likely to damage them by pushing or pulling.  That's another reason why I prefer them as a starting point for exposure than middle grey.
    Having said that, I do sometimes push my exposure up a bit if I have the headroom - a kind of ETTR-lite! (the coward's version 😉).
    I don't really think that 'exposing properly' means always providing end goal exposure levels in-camera.  It's virtually impossible to preserve both highlight detail and ideal skin tone exposure in a large percentage of shots, unless you were to shoot on an Alexa or something (out of my budget range!). 
     
  3. Like
    hyalinejim got a reaction from Mmmbeats in What are the 'correct' skintone values in IRE for HLG acquisition?   
    I don't know for sure, but if X Rite says that the second large chip is "40 IRE" then surely it must be 18% grey.
  4. Like
    hyalinejim got a reaction from tupp in Image thickness / density - help me figure out what it is   
    And I think this is one of the ingredients in "image thickness"... but probably not the only one. Anyway, a very interesting discussion with some great examples and a lot to think about here.
    Another difference I've noticed between film and digital (photos) is that the contrast curve tends to be different. Film has more contrast in the shadows and less in the highlights compared to digital. This makes sense when you consider that film has about four stops under middle grey when shot at box speed, and many more above. For digital it's the opposite: about four stops above middle grey (it varies with camera and with profile, there will be more with log) and many more below.
    So the film print curve is pushing down those low contrast shadows in the toe of the negative to actually make them black, but the highlight curve is much more restrained so that it can hold onto those 10+ stops that reach up into the shoulder (when shooting Vision3 negative film or Portra 400 or Fuji 400H.... you wouldn't get as much highlight headroom with other film stocks).
    Finally, that blocking up of the shadows that you get when film is exposed at box speed or slightly underexposed is actually a very useful visual tool because it focuses the eye on the midtones and highlights.
  5. Like
    hyalinejim got a reaction from tupp in Image thickness / density - help me figure out what it is   
    The situation with film is complex, as so many things in life are. From my tests, the midtones of a scene shot on negative film are most saturated when exposed at +1 or +2 above box speed, and then brought within range when scanning. Nevertheless and regardless of under or overexposure, a comparison of the same scene shot on film and digital will show that the film has more saturated shadows and more desaturated highlights than the digital, when the contrast of the digital is made to match the film scan and when the global saturation of the digital is altered so that midtone saturation matches. Phew, that was a mouthful!
    I think what Art Adams was referring to in his article that mentions desaturated shadows on film is with regard to a print film emulation lut. I could be wrong but he seems to be referring to the fashion for lifted and desaturated shadows that seeks to emulate the toe of film.

    You can see that effect clearly here. This is Fuji 400H exposed at box speed:
    And this is the same chart exposed at -2 but scanned to bring up the midtones. Note how the shadows are lifted, because the shadow areas of the chart are now very close to the base fog of the emulsion, and are hardly registering at all:

    Yes, it's a less saturated image than the correctly exposed one. But if you took a digital shot of the same chart at the same exposure level, applied a curve to match the contrast and altered saturation so that the midtones match.... I think you'd still see the same pattern of more saturation in the shadows for film, and less in the highlights.
    So yes, there is a kind of saturation curve for film: as you increase stops of exposure, saturation increases up to the midtones and then starts to decrease. BUT (!) at each exposure level when proper contrast is applied (either by printing onto paper, projecting onto a screen through transparency, or applying a gamma curve when scanning) the shadows end up more saturated and the highlights less than you would find in a digital file given the same treatment.
    Now, I'm not exactly sure why that is. It sounds logically impossible, but I've seen the proof of it countless times. Note, I'm basing my observations on scans of negative film from a Noritsu minilab scanner. This is not the same process as negative to print film in the motion picture industry. It might be that the Noritsu is controlling saturation in this way. However, if it is then it's doing so to emulate the behaviour of a darkroom print.
    Yes, you and @KnightsFan have shown some great examples of this. However, aside from concerns with exposure, lighting, whether the scene is wet or dry etc., it seems to be the case that two cameras can shoot the same scene and be given the same post treatment, yet one camera will yield a "thick" image and the other will yield a "thin" image.
    What causes it? I think it's the saturation response across the tonal range. Digital images look thin because of the way they (probably accurately) capture saturation from shadows to midtones to highlights. If you want your image to look thicker you need to boost shadows and decrease highlight saturation. But you need enough colour information in the file to do that.
  6. Like
    hyalinejim reacted to deezid in Image thickness / density - help me figure out what it is   
    From today's shooting with the Panasonic S1H (V-Log, NR -1)
    Rokinon 50mm T1.5 at T1.5
    Black Satin 2 Filter
    55M Organic Lut (part of Advanced Deluxe Set)
    Looks thick enough to me. 🙂
    Key is having a camera without nasty processing - especially sharpening and strong NR but having great tonality, at least 10 bit and also good color science instead

  7. Like
    hyalinejim reacted to mat33 in Image thickness / density - help me figure out what it is   
    I think the light and amount of contrast of the scene makes a huge difference to the image thickness.  When you have a good amount of contrast in your scene with areas of shadow and bright highlights, and your object is well exposed then you can bring the blacks down were they belong and help with the perceived thickness (and also reduce the perceived grain/noise).  Were I notice the main difference with cameras that produce thicker images like the digital Bolex is with skin tones and also foliage/leaves/trees etc.  Whether it's the tonality/colour gamut/saturation/shadow saturation or all of these when combined with good light they just look more alive. Here is a screen shot from the D16 (not mine) which while compressed to heck look 'thick' and alive to me.
     
     
     
     


  8. Like
    hyalinejim got a reaction from maxmizer in Image thickness / density - help me figure out what it is   
    Don't forget about shadow saturation! It often gets ignored in talk about highlight rolloff. The Art Adams articles kye posted above are very interesting but he's only concerned with highlight saturation behaviour. Here is a photo taken on film (Kodak Pro Image 100, the same as used in my example above)

     
    Here is the same scene shot as a digital RAW still with Adobe default colour but with contrast matched using RGB curves in ACR. You'll notice that at first glance it's more saturated:

     
    Now here is the same digital shot with a LUT added to match the saturation and hues of the midtones. These now look like a good match. But look carefully at how desaturated the shadow areas look. The saturation has been globally lowered and the shadows are looking (dare I say it?)..... thin!

     
    Finally, here is the same shot with a tweaked lut that boosts saturation in the shadows but keeps midtone and highlight saturation restrained. Now the shadows have deep blues and it looks more like the film shot. Is this a thicker image compared to the version with default colour? I definitely think it looks nicer.

    Again, open all in tabs to notice the difference. Night mode is good too 🙂
     
  9. Like
    hyalinejim got a reaction from tupp in Image thickness / density - help me figure out what it is   
    Yes, it's this transformation in action, as a lut:
    So there are hue transforms going on as well as saturation transforms. But the saturation aspect of it you could totally do in Resolve. Art Adams came up with this for matching F55 to Alexa
     
    And my point is to do something similar for digital to film, the leftmost point on that curve should be raised to boost the shadows. But I don't know if that curve is Log to Log or whatever, in which case it might be right. I think Rec709 to Rec709 it might possibly need to be more like this:

    But I haven't tested it extensively, other than to notice that the results of my tinkering weren't as nice as the lut (because the hue changes are important too). So that adjustment is just a guess off the top of my head and not based on testing how it looks. But you get the general idea.... it's not just a highlight roll off, it's a more or less constant change throughout the range.
  10. Like
    hyalinejim got a reaction from tupp in Image thickness / density - help me figure out what it is   
    Don't forget about shadow saturation! It often gets ignored in talk about highlight rolloff. The Art Adams articles kye posted above are very interesting but he's only concerned with highlight saturation behaviour. Here is a photo taken on film (Kodak Pro Image 100, the same as used in my example above)

     
    Here is the same scene shot as a digital RAW still with Adobe default colour but with contrast matched using RGB curves in ACR. You'll notice that at first glance it's more saturated:

     
    Now here is the same digital shot with a LUT added to match the saturation and hues of the midtones. These now look like a good match. But look carefully at how desaturated the shadow areas look. The saturation has been globally lowered and the shadows are looking (dare I say it?)..... thin!

     
    Finally, here is the same shot with a tweaked lut that boosts saturation in the shadows but keeps midtone and highlight saturation restrained. Now the shadows have deep blues and it looks more like the film shot. Is this a thicker image compared to the version with default colour? I definitely think it looks nicer.

    Again, open all in tabs to notice the difference. Night mode is good too 🙂
     
  11. Haha
    hyalinejim reacted to BTM_Pix in New forum Dark Theme   
    I was wondering about that too.
    I thought it meant they were asking permission to go to the toilet.
  12. Haha
    hyalinejim reacted to Andrew Reid in New forum Dark Theme   
    It means they are coronavirus super spreaders.
  13. Like
    hyalinejim reacted to Anaconda_ in New forum Dark Theme   
    Maybe a bit off topic, but if you're still tinkering with the forum, is there a way to open a topic to the last read post? 
    If not, it's not exactly a major deal to scroll down from the top of the last page.
  14. Like
    hyalinejim got a reaction from tupp in Image thickness / density - help me figure out what it is   
    Let me ask a question!
    These are ColorChecker patches abstracted from -2, 0 and +2 exposures using film in one case and digital in the other (contrast has been matched). Which colour palette is nicer? Open each in a new tab and flick back and forth.
    ONE:

     
    or TWO:

  15. Like
    hyalinejim got a reaction from tupp in Image thickness / density - help me figure out what it is   
    This harks back to deezid's point:
    From my investigations film does seem to have much more saturated shadows than what a digital image offers. If you match the saturation of the midtones of digital to film, then the shadows will need a boost to also match... maybe by around 25-50% at the lowest parts. It's a shockingly huge saturation boost in the shadow areas (and the highlights would need to come down in saturation slightly). I'm not talking about log images here, I'm talking contrasty Rec709.
    The digital capture is probably closer to being an accurate representation of the level of saturation in reality. But film is transformative. We want our images to look better than reality!
    If we talk about memory colours (sky, foliage and skin) the preferences of photographers and middle American shoppers led to altered hue and saturation in Kodak film stocks. So it looks like we prefer skies that are more cyan than in reality, foliage that is cooler and skin that is more uniform, and tending towards tan (Fuji skin tends towards rosy pink).
    With 10bit I can get decent, filmic colour out of V-Log! But 8 bit would fall apart.
  16. Like
    hyalinejim got a reaction from deezid in Image thickness / density - help me figure out what it is   
    1980s Kodak test image from linked article 🙂
  17. Like
    hyalinejim got a reaction from Andrew Reid in Image thickness / density - help me figure out what it is   
    1980s Kodak test image from linked article 🙂
  18. Like
    hyalinejim got a reaction from leslie in Image thickness / density - help me figure out what it is   
    1980s Kodak test image from linked article 🙂
  19. Like
    hyalinejim got a reaction from Mark Romero 2 in The Panasonic DC-BGH1 camera soon to be announced   
    Wow, no love for IBIS today?
    I couldn't go back to a non-IBIS camera. I shoot lots of B roll of people who've never been on camera before and will be gone away in a minute, doing things. IBIS means I can shoot handheld and get three different steady shots from different angles while directing the person(s) in the same amount of time it would take me to get one shot on a tripod.
    I don't use it as a substitute for a dolly, slider or gimbal. I still remember my horror at the shaky jello of my first handheld shots on the 5D Mk 2!
  20. Like
    hyalinejim reacted to MrSMW in Panasonic S5 User Experience   
    Canon may be pumping out cameras and lenses at an insane rate and will continue to do so. And Sony even more. And Nikon ups their game next week. And Fuji next year and...on and on and on it goes.
    Simple bottom line is what do YOU need and what has anyone else got to offer that your current set up is not offering?
    By the sounds of it, you are looking at the cost of an S5 vs the cost the of a C70, albeit switching the roles of your cameras around a bit.
    Then let's say you get the C70 and S1H became your B cam, you'd tell yourself it would make more sense to swap the S1H for a Canon R6. And change all your glass.
    What do you NEED?
    Your needs will be different to mine as they will to the next person and so on, but for this kind of thing, I write a drop down list on the left side of the page in regards to my needs and then simply either put a check mark if I have that need covered or write in the potential options if I have not.
    Then I ask myself are the potential options actual quantifiable and justifiable needs, or just wants?
    Such as 4k 60p. Do you actually need it or is 1080 more than good enough? IBIS, need it or are you always on a tripod or gimbal because then it'e worthless. Autofocus. Need or not? 10 billion dot viewfinder when you only use the back of the screen? Sony A7Siii I am looking at you.
    I don't care what anyone else is doing. My neighbour has a Ferrari. I have a Skoda estate. Good luck sleeping in your Ferrari overnight in the mountains ready for an early morning shoot because I have one of the back seats down, a platform, an air mattress, a 4 season sleeping bag, pillow, plugin coolbox, gas cooker, table, chair... but the Ferrari can do 0-60 in 3.2 seconds which is like 4k raw for an hour or something. Who gives a shit if you don't NEED it.
    Actually my neighbour has an SUV but for demonstration purposes 😉
  21. Like
    hyalinejim got a reaction from noone in Image thickness / density - help me figure out what it is   
    1980s Kodak test image from linked article 🙂
  22. Like
    hyalinejim got a reaction from Gandulf in The Panasonic DC-BGH1 camera soon to be announced   
    Wow, no love for IBIS today?
    I couldn't go back to a non-IBIS camera. I shoot lots of B roll of people who've never been on camera before and will be gone away in a minute, doing things. IBIS means I can shoot handheld and get three different steady shots from different angles while directing the person(s) in the same amount of time it would take me to get one shot on a tripod.
    I don't use it as a substitute for a dolly, slider or gimbal. I still remember my horror at the shaky jello of my first handheld shots on the 5D Mk 2!
  23. Like
    hyalinejim got a reaction from Parker in The Panasonic DC-BGH1 camera soon to be announced   
    Wow, no love for IBIS today?
    I couldn't go back to a non-IBIS camera. I shoot lots of B roll of people who've never been on camera before and will be gone away in a minute, doing things. IBIS means I can shoot handheld and get three different steady shots from different angles while directing the person(s) in the same amount of time it would take me to get one shot on a tripod.
    I don't use it as a substitute for a dolly, slider or gimbal. I still remember my horror at the shaky jello of my first handheld shots on the 5D Mk 2!
  24. Like
    hyalinejim reacted to newfoundmass in The Panasonic DC-BGH1 camera soon to be announced   
    IBIS is a godsend if you're filming sports, documentary, etc. When I first started out I used big S-VHS and VHS cameras; stabilization was never an issue because of the weight and the cameras were shoulder cams. As cameras got smaller, stabilization became more and more of an issue for my kind of work. I can't just stand still, I have to constantly be on the move. When you're rushing to make sure you get a good shot of the action, you NEED good IBIS otherwise your shot will look awful. 
    If everything you do is on a tripod, gimbal or monopod then that's different, obviously. But if you're doing real run and gun, stripped down handheld video then IBIS is huge. I'd much rather have it than not. 
  25. Like
    hyalinejim got a reaction from Juank in The Panasonic DC-BGH1 camera soon to be announced   
    Wow, no love for IBIS today?
    I couldn't go back to a non-IBIS camera. I shoot lots of B roll of people who've never been on camera before and will be gone away in a minute, doing things. IBIS means I can shoot handheld and get three different steady shots from different angles while directing the person(s) in the same amount of time it would take me to get one shot on a tripod.
    I don't use it as a substitute for a dolly, slider or gimbal. I still remember my horror at the shaky jello of my first handheld shots on the 5D Mk 2!
×
×
  • Create New...