Jason Reimer Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Hey Michael, Thanks for the time you've put in on all of these looks. I'll definitely have to try them out. It would be cool to put together a full spectrum of different white balance cards (envelopes, what have you) that anyone could go out and buy be be able to consistently achieve certain looks. I've been following this thread and from time to time the dvxuser one as well, and on my last shoot used some modified versions of the looks people have been posting. If I ever get the time, I'll post some stills and the settings I used. Thanks again! Jay Reimer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Collins Posted July 24, 2007 Author Share Posted July 24, 2007 this has been a great topic. My home was broken into and my DVX was stolen, so I have not been able to try any of the settings. As soon as I get my insurance I am getting a new one and look forward to trying all of these settings. Thanks for all the input, lets keep it going. Thanks brant collins www.collinsmedia.net/wp p.s. anyone on POWNCE? I am Brant on POWNCE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dory Breaux DP Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 THese will be very helpful when i get my camera! Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Michael McIntyre Posted October 19, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted October 19, 2007 Pics, Digits, Paint Chip, then Details..... {*uses WHITE-BALANCE fakeout}..... Single jpeg's to follow.... Scene File: TANG DETAIL -3 V. DETAIL 0 DTL. CORING +2 CHROMA LVL -7 CHROMA PHASE -3 COLOR TEMP -5 MASTER PED -7 A. IRIS -2 GAMMA CineLike KNEE n/a MATRIX NORM SKIN DTL OFF V DTL. THIN 24p White-Balance from one sample of a BEHR paint color chip card (free from Home Depot).... It's a 4-color card from the 520F line. The 2nd color from the top is "520F-5 HARBOR". It's sort of a blue-ish green. I'd zero'ed in on 520F-5 HARBOR as a paint-chip WHT BAL fake for a different Scene File. I'd shot enough that I thought I'd post "TANG" in the meantime. It's been a while since my last settings recipe, so forgive the rambling. Just FYI - the idea behind using a paint chip or color to white balance is to push the camera's spectrum around in a way that you can't do by simply adjusting PHASE and TEMP in the menu. My goal (usually) is to totally freak out the colorspace and bring it back around towards somewhat normal. What seems like only a subtle difference in paint colors or art cards can produce wildly different results in-camera. IF you tweak in post then tweak in post. I do that too. There is a reason this thread is prefixed "Scene File Setting....". It's pretty obvious. The idea was to cook up a somewhat contrasty, autumnal, late afternoon warm look that bent towards yellow. Believe it or not, "TANG" does not bend towards yellow. Shot a batch and put them up on the old Tektronix 1740 scopes / waveform. "TANG" falls into a weird area between red and yellow - somewhat of a coral kind of orangey-pinkish fusion. Because the white-balance has shifted so dramatically, it behaves differently depending on exposure and colors in-frame. No surprises there but it ended up looking more like TANG than the intended October cornfield gold. Individual jpeg's will follow since the comp pic doesn't fully show how weird the colors could get. If you take COLOR TEMP all he way down to -7, it's pure California Orange Crush psychadelia. As always, and all input appreciated. Thanks for looking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Michael McIntyre Posted October 22, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted October 22, 2007 Comp, digits, then details.... {another WHITE-BALANCE FAKE necessary - see below} "CyBlue" DETAIL LEVEL: -4 V DETAIL LEVEL:-3 DETAIL CORING:+2 CHROMA LEVEL:-7 CHROMA PHASE: -7 COLOR TEMP:-3 MASTER PEDESTAL: -6 A. IRIS -2 GAMMA: B. PRESS KNEE: LOW MATRIX: NORM SKIN TONE DTL: OFF V DETAIL FREQ:MID PROGRESSIVE: 24p I realize I just posted another batch ("TANG") but I got in a groove lately and this recipe had eluded me. After posting the "GoldenEye" set, I'd been asked several times about creating a 'cool blue' look. "300" had just come out and a series of plug-ins were being cooked up that mirrored some of this look. Not to bore you with the details but here goes: A 'cool blue' look actually leans heavily towards cyan, stopping just short of it. There's actually more cyan in any given 'blue look' than there is blue. Blue gets too blocky and noisy. Our first thought on seeing a similar shot is "Hey, that's a cool blue". Usually, there's some cyan-at-play. Cyan proved increasingly difficult to find its evil twin, reverse or anti-complementary color for a white balance fake. Yes, that's complementary, "relating to or constituting one of a pair of contrasting colors that produce a neutral color when combined in suitable proportions". Suffice to say, it can get old white-balancing and staring at scopes. Upon further inspection, it was the paint chips that were the problem after all. Both BEHR and Disney lines of paint arrive at a dizzying array of paint choices by blending various colors just like anyone would. When referenced, many of their products leave behind chroma blooms and color artifacts that offset additional colors. You don't always see these when shooting in one situation with a camera tethered to a vectorscope and waveform. Outside, with changing light and exposure, things can get weird and colors shift. Lows, Mids and Highs all respond differently, especially when you're goofing around with the camera's brain like here. There's almost no way to predict how a BEHR or Disney will do in-field. Enter Ralph Lauren. Seems his smaller (2.5" x 2.5") paint samples had found their way to the bottom of the gear bag. For whatever reason, Ralph Lauren's line of paints provide much cleaner and isolated white balance fakes. Maybe it's the higher price and, no, I don't work for Ralph Lauren. These paint chips, as always, are free at your local Home Depot. This is a similar approach as prior.... Freak out the camera and dial it in on the scopes to be 'painted' whatever with little hints remaining of other colors. This look would benefit from a lower MASTER PED and green-suppression. IB64 "Lifevest Orange" was the WINNER for this white-balance fake. And the losers are...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Reimer Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 I think it'd be cool to put together a book of different DVX looks with reference photos, settings, and then a list of all the free paint chips one would need in order to white balance them. One of these days maybe. In particular, though, I was wondering if you know off the top of your head what paint chips might work to get the Hostel and Golden Eye looks? Thanks for the time you've put into this. After reading this thread a few months ago, I played around with some of the looks here and on the DVXuser thread and came up with one of my own that ended up working great for a shoot I was on up in central Oregon. Good times. Again, keep up the good work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dory Breaux DP Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Ideas come to me... I think it'd be cool to put together a book of different DVX looks with reference photos, settings, and then a list of all the free paint chips one would need in order to white balance them. One of these days maybe. In particular, though, I was wondering if you know off the top of your head what paint chips might work to get the Hostel and Golden Eye looks? Thanks for the time you've put into this. After reading this thread a few months ago, I played around with some of the looks here and on the DVXuser thread and came up with one of my own that ended up working great for a shoot I was on up in central Oregon. Good times. Again, keep up the good work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Michael McIntyre Posted November 2, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted November 2, 2007 Hey, Jason: I've often debated about doing a book of looks. I just wasn't sure if there'd be enough interest to put one out. Many people you read on dvxuser have a hard enough time just pony'ing up for Barry Green's book (if it didn't come with their camera already). I think it could be a great resource - it's hard to guage whether there's a market there. Also - it might be hard to come up with enough looks to warrant publication. I've managed to come up with a few but it seems like a weird, vicious cycle. You spend enough time getting one 'okay' and it makes you want to just do it in post. Then, you spend enough time in post that you long for a look to do it in-camera. Weird how that works. Regarding the Hostel and GoldenEye looks, they weren't actually paint chips but colored envelopes. They're colored semi-transparent plastic with a string tie to hold letter-sized paper or whatever. Hostel: Smead UltraColor Envelope (No. 89531 - Purple) Golden EYE: Smead UltraColor Envelope 89532 (BLUE this time) I don't seem to have a picture of the BLUE one for GoldenEye but this is the one used for Hostel to give you an idea.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Reimer Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 Hey Michael, I hear ya on the in camera vs post vicious cycle. Lately I've been trying to get as close as possible to the final look I want in camera, just to save on rendering times. My computer is a dog, so anything to save some time rendering. Plus, I think that when you commit to a certain look on tape that you can't really go back and change, it forces you to be more disciplined. But that doesn't mean I won't still tinker with it in post for hours. I think you're right, though, there's probably not enough demand for an actual published book. I suppose we can just use this thread to gather up all the looks we find and collect them here. When I get caught up and have some time, I promise I'll go dig up the settings I used on my last shoot and see if I can find some stills to share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nik Samal Posted April 20, 2008 Share Posted April 20, 2008 ahhh damn i wish i'd read this thread a couple months ago. would have really helped me. but maybe in the future. really usefull. well done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Walter Graff Posted April 20, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted April 20, 2008 Just wondering if anyone does any monitoring of their work with a scope while editing or if you are making colors and levels simply what you want irrigarless of whether they are legal video signals or not? I was thinking about writting an article on how to make sure your images are legal and why you need to do this. Would anyone find such a topic interesing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Reimer Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 Hey Walter, I'd definitely read something like that. Up to this point, I've always just set my looks by eye. Since there's no danger any of my stuff will ever be broadcast, that's fine, but in the future it would be nice to know how to conform to broadcast standards. I appreciate the time you put into this for rookies like myself. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Walter Graff Posted April 22, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted April 22, 2008 Since there's no danger any of my stuff will ever be broadcast, that's fine, Not true. If it's played on a tape of DVD, or any other medium that is subject to the same standards as broadcast (as in acceptable color ranges, levels, etc.) you may be hurting yourself for example by having colors outside the acceptable range, or not understanding why pushing blacks down to -30 may not be in your best interest. I will definitely write this article because I don;'t think folks realize they are often doing things that are not helping them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Reimer Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 Yep, there's lots I don't know. :) PS- I just printed out your lighting kit article from the lighting thread to read when I get home from work. Thanks again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nik Samal Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 this short video i'm doing for uni now, a lot of the white is burnt out, at like well between 100 and 110. but if i pull the whites down, it makes it look...crap. any advice on how i can get the whites down to broadcast safe without changing the other colours too? i'm using fcp. cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Michael Nash Posted April 23, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted April 23, 2008 this short video i'm doing for uni now, a lot of the white is burnt out, at like well between 100 and 110. but if i pull the whites down, it makes it look...crap. any advice on how i can get the whites down to broadcast safe without changing the other colours too?i'm using fcp. cheers If the whites are clipped in camera, there's nothing you can do to make them "not white" in post -- the information in those areas is simply gone. You can bring them down to 100 and they should be legal. Bringing them down farther will just make them a pale gray and the contrast of the image will start to flatten out. If bringing the whites down to 100% makes the rest of the image look too dark, you can bring the mids back up with the 3-way color corrector or the Levels tool. Use your waveform monitor to compare the "before" and "after" images to set the level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nik Samal Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 nice one michael i'll give that a go in the morning. also just wondered if there was anything that can be done about like the really REALLY tiny areas of super white that no matter if i pull the whites all the way down, (which makes the rest of the image almost unvisable), the luma tool thing (sorry for the bad description, it's been a long day haha) still says it not broadcast safe? thanks in advance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Walter Graff Posted April 23, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted April 23, 2008 Most outpuit proc amps are set to between 100 and 105 units. So while the video may be over that, it will still get outputted at 100 by teh proc amp section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nik Samal Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 sweet as a nut. thanks for the info walter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Michael McIntyre Posted April 29, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted April 29, 2008 also just wondered if there was anything that can be done about like the really REALLY tiny areas of super white that no matter if i pull the whites all the way down, (which makes the rest of the image almost unvisable), the luma tool thing (sorry for the bad description, it's been a long day haha) still says it not broadcast safe?thanks in advance It's not always spot-on but (since you're using FCP) there's the "Broadcast Safe" filter. You can set how conservative you want your whites clipped. Rather than bring down all the luminance of your image, it will just clip those trouble areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now