PDA

View Full Version : Color Grade Test



ATN_Productions
2007 September 4th, 22:34
24p Cinemode 48 shutter

Sony Vegas 7.0 (pwns premiere) at 23.967 fps 3:2 pulldown

First good "film" looking footage that was relatively easy to edit and render

http://hv20.info/yopu/colorgradetest.wmv

Give me feedback tell me what you think
:hv20-smilie77:

-ATN

Hallvalla
2007 September 4th, 23:03
Beautiful...looks great.

Care to share your process on this look? I have relatives with similar property, and would like to experiment with this look.

Nice work.

ATN_Productions
2007 September 4th, 23:42
I mainly messed around with the contrast and saturation
make sure to put the spread off saturation all the way up
if i didnt do that it was over exposing it

Hallvalla
2007 September 5th, 00:21
Sweet.

Did you use a 35m adapter? There is some nice DOF after the guy enters the frame and the focus is on him. If not, were you using auto focus vs. instant auto focus? It took a second for the camera to focus on the guy, and then there was sort of a quick refocus...don't get me wrong, I liked the effect.

~J~

ATN_Productions
2007 September 5th, 00:37
Sweet.

Did you use a 35m adapter? There is some nice DOF after the guy enters the frame and the focus is on him. If not, were you using auto focus vs. instant auto focus? It took a second for the camera to focus on the guy, and then there was sort of a quick refocus...don't get me wrong, I liked the effect.

~J~

Nope i zoomed in about 5x and got a nice DOF!!!
Few contrast and saturaton ujustments but other than that its raw footage
I love this camera =]
35mm adapter soon though

lmao that quick re-focus was a total accident but it looks pretty cool!
Yeah i had it on Instant focus
That why i need a 35mm adapter and an extra cameraman
Cuz that was me in the shot
I put the camera on a tripod and ran over
lol

talk about low budget =P

mayhem
2007 September 5th, 01:16
35mm adapt. is overrated, you lose light and clarity, and gain only a marginal dof. The 35mm craze is crazy.

Hallvalla
2007 September 5th, 01:48
That's interesting you say that, Mayhem. I've been thinking the same thing. I can definitely see using it for narratives/short movies, if you have the setup time.

I used my HV20 the other night for the first time, and I couldn't imagine trying to pull focus for every single shot. Definitely not for run and gun.

I'm headed to Sweden on Saturday and can't wait to use it there. I'm bringing a wide angle but this camera takes such nice images on its own I'm not really sure I'll need it.

I took some cool footage of all the neon strip joint signs in San Francisco's North Beach area, and will upload some sample footage soon. I was shocked at the quality. Really nice camera.

Worley
2007 September 5th, 01:58
It all depends what you want to record. A 35mm adapter is just one of many tools we use to achieve a certain look.

Polarizing filters to reduce reflections, UV to reduce haze, ND filters to reduce glare... None of them essential, but all useful. The same applies to the 35mm adapters.

Yes, pulling focus quickly is difficult; the art is to do it smoothly and naturally, so that the viewer doesn't notice. It takes a lot of practice.

Use what works for you.

mayhem
2007 September 5th, 02:30
Start with the best image from the beginning, the look you want you can get in post without HD image degredation, you will have greater control and less headaches in getting what you want. That doesn't take shooting skills out of it, but all the junk you put on your cam to get the look right now that you want, wont go away if you want to change it in the editing room later.

jackson
2007 September 5th, 02:55
looks good, crisp

Eugenia Loli-Queru
2007 September 5th, 04:20
Nice!

kilikili
2007 September 5th, 08:12
Wow that looks awesome! Only thing I noticed was a breathing effect (slight focuses in and out) but I guess that's not the subject here. Otherwise it looks fantastic!

Dominus
2007 September 5th, 10:21
Very nice looking clip, any chance you remember the camera and CC settings?

tkmslee
2007 September 5th, 11:53
Start with the best image from the beginning, the look you want you can get in post without HD image degradation, you will have greater control and less headaches in getting what you want. That doesn't take shooting skills out of it, but all the junk you put on your cam to get the look right now that you want, wont go away if you want to change it in the editing room later.

I must disagree with you mayhem (as would most of the digital film making world). You said "Start with the best footage". Yes this is the best advice to give anyone. That is why you plan your shots because the more you do in post, the more quality you loose...I think any filmmaker will tell you that. They always plan their shots before they shoot.

The reason why there is such a craze with the 35mm adapter thing is because it works and it's the best. Your camera can't come close...especially to the ease of achieving DOF.

The quality of the DOF is better too...I know people scoff at that statement, but compare the native DOF of the HV20 to that of one with an adapter attached to it. In the native DOF, you will see diamond shaped patterns in the light bouncing off of objects and you can't ever quite get it as shallow as you want it to be (I have tried it with more than one camera). In an adapter DOF, it is much smoother and as shallow as the lens you have attached to it. I guess this is how I am defining "good" DOF.

Then of course the ease of DOF. If you use just your camera to achieve it, there is no way you can effectively pan, dolly, or hand hold anything because it is zoomed in so much that it will detect any movement and your footage will be destroyed. An adapter opens up a world of possibilities that you could not have otherwise while achieving shallow DOF. If you watch videos using the adapters that also employs a dolly, panning, and hand held shots I think you will agree that it is worth the money or effort to buy or make one.

Mark Dog2
2007 September 5th, 12:03
looked great to me atn real sharp show us some more it was very short

mayhem
2007 September 5th, 22:05
I must disagree with you mayhem (as would most of the digital film making world). You said "Start with the best footage". Yes this is the best advice to give anyone. That is why you plan your shots because the more you do in post, the more quality you loose...I think any filmmaker will tell you that. They always plan their shots before they shoot.
The reason why there is such a craze with the 35mm adapter thing is because it works and it's the best. Your camera can't come close...especially to the ease of achieving DOF.


Funny, i've seen some of your footage and it is incredibly SOFT (lacking definition). How can you say you start with the best image when it is washed out before you ever get it into the NLE. I would like to see you do some compositing with your 35mm (proxy) image. The BEST I think not. Got news for ya' most of the digital filmaking world (Those actually making movies) aren't using 35mm adapters, they are using camera's that are made to use 35mm lenses.

tkmslee
2007 September 5th, 23:20
Funny, i've seen some of your footage and it is incredibly SOFT (lacking definition). How can you say you start with the best image when it is washed out before you ever get it into the NLE. I would like to see you do some compositing with your 35mm (proxy) image. The BEST I think not. Got news for ya' most of the digital filmaking world (Those actually making movies) aren't using 35mm adapters, they are using camera's that are made to use 35mm lenses.

Not my footage, but nonetheless, done with an "Adapter":

http://www.urbanrhinovisual.com/presents/fisher/shell.html

It has very, very sharp images as well as great shallow DOF. Don't dismiss them just yet.

paramon
2007 September 5th, 23:45
Incredible image for $1000 camcorder, really great!

Erik Bien
2007 September 5th, 23:55
Got news for ya' most of the digital filmaking world (Those actually making movies) aren't using 35mm adapters, they are using camera's that are made to use 35mm lenses.

Actually, there are a few (http://prolost.blogspot.com/) indie filmmakers using 35mm adapters combined with small HD cameras to make features. The differences go beyond tkmslee's "good" DOF (*UGH!*): a shot on a long lens has a different "feel" than a wide lens, Nikons are crisp and "snappy" while a Cooke or Angineux will feel a little "softer," etc. Up until last Friday (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4252), the only motion-picture cameras that took 35mm glass were the likes of Aaton, Arri, Genesis and Dalsa; effectively too expensive to own.

mayhem
2007 September 6th, 00:45
Not my footage, but nonetheless, done with an "Adapter":

http://www.urbanrhinovisual.com/presents/fisher/shell.html

It has very, very sharp images as well as great shallow DOF. Don't dismiss them just yet.

Funny you should mention nathan beamans work. He uses a hvx-200, I also own a hvx-200 and even without an adapter it has soft hd images . Strange how my hv20 is sharper in 108024 than my hvx-200 don't you think? Hvx-200 $6000 hv20 $1000.

Erik Bien
2007 September 6th, 01:19
Not so strange when comparing the specs:

HV20=1920x1080 single CMOS
HVX200=3 'pixel shifted' CCDs of something like 920 lines (if Panasonic says exactly, I haven't found it. (http://www.hvx200.eu/specification.php?lang=en))
Edit: According to Wiki the Wise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panasonic_AG-HVX200), they're one-third-inch 960x540 pixels

I could forgive the softness, but not the "fiesta noise" that seems to plague the shadow rendition of that camera even in a well-exposed scene.

tkmslee
2007 September 6th, 09:48
I am having a hard time even grasping why you would compare the HVX to the HV20...they are both in different classes. If you own both cameras, please show me a side by side test...I really want to see one (because the HVX is the camera I want one day).

So, mayhem, what is the best HD camera in your opinion?

mayhem
2007 September 6th, 13:01
As far as control and color reproduction my hvx wins hands down, actual sharpness and resolution my hv20 kills it. Pretty sad but true!

tkmslee
2007 September 6th, 15:16
As far as control and color reproduction my hvx wins hands down, actual sharpness and resolution my hv20 kills it. Pretty sad but true!

Will you show us a fair side by side clip of the two cameras?

Ian-T
2007 September 6th, 18:43
As far as control and color reproduction my hvx wins hands down, actual sharpness and resolution my hv20 kills it. Pretty sad but true!
Thanks for clearing that up. i've been trying to tell people that for a while now but ...oh well. Still... the HVX is an overall better camera with its manual controls...but I prefer more control in post work myself.

HVX is more "Flim-like" to me out of the box with its softer image and color reproduction...but in terms of sharpness and resolution..the HV20 beats it. This little buggars native sensor resolution makes it a 2k cam. if there were a way to adramatize (sp) it then it could possibly be like a mini red (which I know is a 4k cam). tk

tkmslee
2007 September 7th, 10:12
Here is what gets me. There are a lot of pocket sized, point and shoot, cameras out there that actually have a higher pixel count than some professional digital SLR cameras. I have actually heard people arguing that their little pocket camera is so much better than the pro cameras based on the simple fact that it has more mega pixels.

So even if it is true that the HV20 has more resolution, there is no way it can be compared to cameras like the HVX. There are more important factors than resolution here.

Just my $0.02 worth.

Ian-T
2007 September 7th, 10:26
tlmslee, I don't disagree with you. I agree that one really should not compare an HVX with an HV20...especially in terms of featurs etc. One could go on and on about the advantages the HVX has over these consumer cams. But in my opinion what you can compare it to is the final output. I have seen footage from he HVX that was stunning and some looked like crap. The same goes with the HV20. In all cases what mattered was who was behind the camera.

tkmslee
2007 September 7th, 10:39
tlmslee, I don't disagree with you. I agree that one really should not compare an HVX with an HV20...especially in terms of featurs etc. One could go on and on about the advantages the HVX has over these consumer cams. But in my opinion what you can compare it to is the final output. I have seen footage from he HVX that was stunning and some looked like crap. The same goes with the HV20. In all cases what mattered was who was behind the camera.

Very true...I have actually seen some footage from the HVX that was pretty bad.

Orchidthief
2007 September 7th, 13:41
Not my footage, but nonetheless, done with an "Adapter":

http://www.urbanrhinovisual.com/presents/fisher/shell.html

It has very, very sharp images as well as great shallow DOF. Don't dismiss them just yet.


New to Nathan Beaman's work, but was just wondering where it states that this footage was shot with an HV20 and adapter? Not to disregard the power of the HV20, but that footage was awesome. Day by day goes and I just keep seeing better and better footage being shot with it. So hard to believe that it comes from camera that fall below 1K.....It's this kind of footage that motivates me to go out and shoot with the little bugger..

tkmslee
2007 September 7th, 14:11
New to Nathan Beaman's work, but was just wondering where it states that this footage was shot with an HV20 and adapter? Not to disregard the power of the HV20, but that footage was awesome. Day by day goes and I just keep seeing better and better footage being shot with it. So hard to believe that it comes from camera that fall below 1K.....It's this kind of footage that motivates me to go out and shoot with the little bugger..

I don't think I said that it was an HV20 (I hope I didn't misled anyone). He shot it with the HVX200 and Redrock adapter. I don't think it says that on his site, but he posts on the Redrock forum and I actually e-mailed him some questions and he responded.

I mostly wanted to show how sharp of images can still be captured even if you use an adapter.

24Peter
2007 September 7th, 16:00
I don't think I said that it was an HV20 (I hope I didn't misled anyone). He shot it with the HVX200 and Redrock adapter. I don't think it says that on his site, but he posts on the Redrock forum and I actually e-mailed him some questions and he responded.

I mostly wanted to show how sharp of images can still be captured even if you use an adapter.

tkmslee - did you shoot your wedding video in CineMode?

tkmslee
2007 September 7th, 16:35
tkmslee - did you shoot your wedding video in CineMode?

Yes I did.

mayhem
2007 September 7th, 23:29
Will you show us a fair side by side clip of the two cameras?

You live in Utah correct? Come on over, I would be happy to show you.

tkmslee
2007 September 8th, 11:21
You live in Utah correct? Come on over, I would be happy to show you.

Dude, if you have both cameras, then just post something.

mayhem
2007 September 8th, 19:28
tkmslee, Here you go! Not quite side by side, but here are some Zebra patterns for ya. To make it fair I resized the images.

tkmslee
2007 September 8th, 20:03
tkmslee, Here you go! Not quite side by side, but here are some Zebra patterns for ya. To make it fair I resized the images.

Could you make some side by side video for us...I really am interested to see I'm not just trying to be a jerk (I do plan on buying an HVX one day).

mayhem
2007 September 9th, 02:10
Could you make some side by side video for us...I really am interested to see I'm not just trying to be a jerk (I do plan on buying an HVX one day).

Can't figure out the video yopu upload here?