Technicolor's Cinestyle test feedback

wwjd wrote on 9/29/2012, 11:04 PM
If you are into Nature and slow piano, please watch and give me ANY feedback you want. I confidently admit being a total noob at: DSLR, filming, framing, coloring, audio etc etc etc so ANY feedback is great for me. Negative is the most helpful so that is especially encouraged. The only grading I used was the one main Color Corrector in P11

I shot this afternoon to test out TECHNICOLOR CINESTYLE on my Canon T3i, 10-22mm lens, Technicolor Cinestyle color program, edited Sony Vegas Pro 11

Comments

VidMus wrote on 9/30/2012, 12:05 AM
Overall it is quite nice but it needs better stabilization on some scenes. The video bit rate is way too low and severely hurts a number of scenes with pans and tilt.

The piano music is a great match for this video.

rstrong wrote on 9/30/2012, 12:57 AM
Absolutely, any movement in nature videos must be super smooth.

R. Strong

Custom remote refrigerated water cooled system for CPU & GPU. Intel i7- 6950X, 10 Core (4.3 Turbo) 64gb DDR4, Win7 64 Bit, SP1. Nvidia RTX 2080, Studio driver 431.36, Cameras: Sony HVR-Z5U, HVR-V1U, HVR-A1U, HDR-HC3. Canon 5K MK2, SX50HS. GoPro Hero2. Nikon CoolPix P510. YouTube: rstrongvideo

Grazie wrote on 9/30/2012, 1:06 AM
Absolutely, any movement in nature videos must be super smooth.

Or meant: The stalking by a lioness or tiger or the badger-view of the world!

Rules are meant to be broken. The narrative is the thing that kills the king!

Grazie

farss wrote on 9/30/2012, 3:25 AM
Aside from the already mentioned meandering / jump pans the thing I noticed most was the blown out sky in a number of shots.Not only was the colour lost so was detail.

I'm uncertain exactly what TECHNICOLOR CINESTYLE is supposed to do in the T3i but if it is similar to other "cine" things that attempt to preserve highlights be aware they have to be used with caution. The aggresive gamma curve is fine when you push specular highlights or whites into it however colours can suffer unwanted shifts or be lost.

Bob.
Tim20 wrote on 9/30/2012, 5:38 AM
Music is fine. Although @ 6 minutes in length from an artistic view I am trying to figure out what you are trying to tell me. If it's fall, changing season, time of dying you never showed that, i.e. no symbolism. you need something like a leaf falling to the ground and maybe even being carried away by water. Of course you would also need a few more.

DOF focus should be used with caution. It should be used to show relationships of one subject to another or a change of one to the other. When it gets used too much all I see is, "Ok this person learned a new technique and now they are going to wear it out."
Arthur.S wrote on 9/30/2012, 6:04 AM
Colour looks good. Some very nicely framed shots. But....the shots are much much too long. Therefore it fails to hold the attention. I made it to about 2mins and just got bored. Also, some shots that seem pointless. Wide shot pointing down at what looks like dead grass? If you went back to the edit and cut most of the shots by half...it still wouldn't be enough. Keep things moving...keep attention. Doesn't mean MTV! :-)
JJKizak wrote on 9/30/2012, 7:07 AM
Noted several small exposure changes during some zooms. Pan-stop-pan is not my style as I would dissovle after stopping the pan. Sometimes cutting is the best thing to do maybe some of the jerky parts. But all in all I like the format as I am a 2.35 x 1 nut.
JJK
Chienworks wrote on 9/30/2012, 8:06 AM
"Rules are meant to be broken. The narrative is the thing that kills the king!"

Grazie, a comment i recently made in a pro photography forum during a debate about the evils of automatic exposure: "anyone who tells you what you must or should do is limiting you and hurting your creativity."
danv wrote on 9/30/2012, 8:52 AM
I appreciated this video because it gave me some ideas to use in my Underwater Videography.....Specifically, shots as in your opening, when the distant life is in focus, then you pull in to close up, and the distant shots become softer then out of focus ( your cine effect) as the sharp texture of the leaves begin to dominate.

This is an approach that would work great for a beautiful coral reef, with a massive amount of life that needs to have a way to show the whole thing--then highlight a portion, then keep switching between the big picture and the new spectacle with the high texture 1080p sharpness :-)

And I like the piano for my version on your concept :-)

Thanks,
Dan

p.s.
Here is something I shot a year ago, which I would do again with the ideas you just gave me..... much more move into position with camera not rolling, then shoot....I have too much of the shaky travel to a shot--which also plagued you a bit...and then highlight all the cool elements of the reef around me with your concept....
wwjd wrote on 9/30/2012, 10:05 AM
Spectacular feedback! Thanks EVERYONE for viewing and all comments!

Vidmus:
I hate shaky cam also, but forgot my "stabilizer" on this spontaneous shoot.
"BIT RATE" meaning final render or something in the camera? I did see some artifacts after the render was done but wasn't planning to share this anywhere, and rendered as INTERNET HD or something not too high bit-wise I think.

Farss:
Sky: yeah, wasn't sure what to do with that. Cinestyle flattens everything going in but I'm such a camera noob I ignored the "Zebras" in the sky. It was totally clear and just light blue sky. I dialed the AE down a few times, but I need to do more reading. :) So far, though, I do see the need and use for TECHNICOLOR CINESTYLE to expand (by compressing) dynamic range since the camera is limited.

Tim20:
6 minutes was too long to me but I was enjoying the editing process. ;)
Calling it FALL was an after thought since this was just a practice exercise. EXCELLENT feedback and I agree I abused the DOF also. New Lens, trying to figure it out.

Arthur.S:
yep, I agree completely. great feedback!

JJKizak:
Ah HA! wondered who would catch that. A friend warned me my lens would do that.... not sure how to fix - maybe AE LOCK or something I don't know about on my Camera... everything was pathetically crossfaded because I was lazy hahhaha

danv:
Loved your videos! Can you even DO DOF shots underwater?? That sounds crazy cool. All my stable shots were tripodded. You can always cheat and use some out of focus mask thingy to do pretend DOF. The music was free at http://incompetech.com/

Much thanks again to everyone. I read and soaked in ALL your thoughts. This was just a spontaneous technical experiment, and all your feedback is GREATLY APPRICIATED!! :)
wwjd wrote on 9/30/2012, 10:07 AM
in my own self critique to a buddy of mine yesterday, here's what I had written....

I'm aware of my amateur mistakes:
- lots of DOF stuff
- all pans left to right
- shaky cam (forgot my stabilizer)
- boring crossfades
- I may have used the wrong color temp initally

danv wrote on 9/30/2012, 10:47 AM
Let's talk about the "changing DOF" techniques....
I am in u/w video because I can do things underwater few divers can...I can get to places other divers can't get to, I can keep up with marine life that has it's slow cruise speed at 2 to 3 times that of most divers, etc.... Most of the people posting in this forum have a great deal more knowledge of the technical side of shooting than I do.....
I shoot manual video, the Canon 5D mark 2 lets me "modify" the iso setting to alter how bright or dark the video os....I use manual focus to get the sharpest video I can....I am shooting at a speed of 1/1200 ( due to the tremendous amount of rapid movement occuring in the life swimming all around the view area of the lens in most shots...some much more so than others....When I have use "traditional" speeds, much of the video is too soft or blurry from movement.

So...DOF changing for me....I would kneel down on a patch of sand in a "valley" with "coral cliffs" surrounding me .....I can shoot the big wide scene in the distance, and then I can go to the close up as in this cine style example.....
I know if I change my F stop, DOF changes, but I am not certain the best way to try this....I am wondering if I try AV for this, if I might be able to set the DOF I desire....essentially make changes while kneeling on the bottom, to the DOF....
What would be your suggestions on this ?
LJA wrote on 9/30/2012, 12:36 PM
wwjd,

I think I understand your aesthetic and I am very comfortable with it. I did not find your video too long nor did I feel uncomfortable with the length of any of the shots. As Grazie commented, this is not narrative and therefore you need not be confined to narrative tools and techniques. The music was perfect and you blended it into the visual “story” effortlessly.

The comments about stabilization were perhaps a bit off point; the added feeling of informality and personal search coming from the hand held shots was a contribution to interpreting your intent, ultimately not what you actually wanted perhaps, but intriguing nevertheless.

The comments about exposure I agree with; the images would have been more powerful with less intense skies, but expanding highlights I have found difficult in Vegas. Perhaps lowering gamma more and raising the blacks to compensate would have helped. Locking exposure I have found mandatory for this kind of video. DSLRs tend to change exposure abruptly, detracting from your contemplative intent.

Your use of a 2.35 aspect ratio I found surprising but welcome; I will consider this more seriously myself in the future.

So good luck. I look forward to what you do in the future.

Larry
wwjd wrote on 9/30/2012, 1:49 PM
DanV:
like I mention, I am a total noob. bought the gear, no REAL experience using it. I point and do stuff, figured some things out, no clue how to explain them. sorry!

like the DOF in the opening shot... I would have wanted MORE of the leave in focus, not just that narrow band of focus. As I understand it, i would have needed to "make it darker" using larger aperture numbers? and that widens the depth of focus? all I did was get something real close to the lens (leaves) then focus on the far stuff, then pull focus to the close thing while panning. I can make that happen on my other lens also even easier - this was a test of my super wide angle 10-22mm lens

LJA:
thanks for the feedback. Yeah, this was all just testing footage, wasn't trying to make anything coherent. And during the walk through parts, I would prefer they be glassy smooth, but I was using the tripod with legs extended as a "stabilizer" not realizing the legs would get caught on the foliage. my bad.
I plan to do more tests today with CINESTYLE Profile and will work on the skies issue. I THEEENK darker AE is the answer since Cinestyle compresses everything anyway. I allowed blown out Zebra area because I didn't know how it would come out, honestly. Still messing and learning. :)

Not sure about locking exposure... it was the first thing I noticed zooming this lens out. Did some research, but can't find a fix yet. The lens is rated from 3.5-4.5 and steps through it whilst zooming, I guess. I don't HAVE to zoom using that lens... but was experimenting.

I hope to shoot everything at 2.40:1 ratio

anywho, all this in Sony forum, because I use Vegas to "uncompress" the flat video. I'm supposed to use LUT first, but it looked like I could skip that step and go strait to Color Corrector.

Any reason a LUT is required using CINESTYLE (in camera curve) profile?
Cinestyle is FREE for you Canon dslr guys
http://www.technicolor.com/en/hi/theatrical/visual-post-production/digital-printer-lights/cinestyle
(I'm happily using MAGIC LANTERN also)
danv wrote on 9/30/2012, 5:31 PM
Hey, if anyone can answer my thread hijack :-)
I tried in my backyard with the canon 5d mark 2 , using a 16 to 35 mm lens, at 16 mm setting....I used f 22 and tried f2.8 with close up subject with distant background...both seemed the backgrounds were fairly in focus for the video..I was hoping that I could get close up in focus with a very out of focus background...It may be that the camera will do what I want for stills, but not in video mode....does anyone know?
wwjd wrote on 9/30/2012, 9:36 PM
I don't know the 5D but suspect it is somewhat similar to my T3i. Remember I know very little about photography, but I can pass on my settings and maybe that would help. I have the exact opposite problem: almost everything is DOF shots. I bought a 10-22mm lens and that helped a lot, but that also worked for DOF shots as seen in the first video. I realize you are underwater and having to shoot at 1/1200 (which is almost completely dark on my camera) but here are my settings for today's test:

lens: canon kit 18-55mm f 3.5 - 5.6
size/fps: 1920x1080 30p
iso: 160
shutter: 1/60 (twice the 30fps above) ((have yet to try anything above 60))
color: cloudy

if I hold the "AV" button, I can dial aperature down f22 max, but mostly I left it at f3.5 (per the lens)

the foreground was about "a few" inches in front of the lens, background was many yards away.
Then I did a follow up test cranked it to f22 (much darker), and ISO 1250 (to make it viewable and the DOF was much, much wider - but it looked like crap, twas ust an example.
Did a quick ugly color grade over the whole thing so try to ignore that.
(Cinestyle is very flat and contrasted out so I had to do something to it)
What I sort of kinda learned (and I ususally get this all backwards) is the amount of light you let in, affects the Depth Of Field - can't remember if it more light or less light, but if its brighter in my lcd view it is shallowed DOF, when it is darker it is deeper DOF - maybe like when you dial your shutter up to 1200?

DOF test 18-55mm lens:


I bought my camera to shoot video only, but sometimes take some stills for fun. the DOF seems very similar in both movie and still mode.

I also use MAGIC LANTERN software, but the only parts I use are the extra ISOs, the flickery focus dots help me know what I am focusing on exactly, cinema cropping view to frame things up, the slick white balancer, and the audio meters.

Not sure I helped much, but I bet there is a great 5D forum out there that can answer correctly. Good luck!


Tim20 wrote on 10/1/2012, 6:10 AM
Best thing I can tell you is search the internet and read about dof, shutter speed focal length. It is a very complicated relationship that takes getting to know your lens through a lot of experimenting. And using any auto settings will counteract what you are trying to achieve, i.e auto focus, auto iris, auto shutter. Everytime I think I got it I have to go back and refresh my memory.

For the film look in digital the conventional wisdom is to open the aperature as wide as it will go and not go above approx. f5 That keeps the subject in focus while objects further and further away are blurry. Btw thats a guide not a rule :)

Also one lens will never be suitable to all tasks but if you are like me and stuck with a zoom on the videocamera you learn the limitations and work with it. I never do zoom shots as they almost always look cheesy, so if I cant do it with a dolly or jib it gets shot at a fixed position.

Now get out of here and go shoot something :)
JasonATL wrote on 10/1/2012, 6:55 AM
dany - as Tim20 said, there is a lot more to learn about DoF, aperature, focal lengths, etc. In general, the longer the focal length, the shallower the depth of field at a specific distance. Compared to the 16mm length, focused on something, say, 6 ft away, there will be a shallower depth of field if you used the 35mm length and focused on the same subject at the same distance. In other words, the background will appear more out of focus using the longer focal length. Also, the lower f-stop (wider aperature) provides the shallower depth of field.

The "trick" (it isn't magic, it is physics) to getting shallow depth of field with a video camera, for example, is to zoom in and step back. This does come at a cost of field of view. But, again, this is physics. The 5D's large sensor makes it easier to get shallow depth of field, compared to a smaller sensor in a video camera, but wide angle lenses are working against you on this.
paul_w wrote on 10/1/2012, 6:56 AM
Hi, wwjd,
With regards to techincolor cinestyle, the whole point of it is to allow increased dynamic range from the sensor to be recorded. Retaining as much detail as possible in the shadows and highlights. When you record with TC, you are effectively increasing the dynamic range from say a standard picture profile.
Now if you play this footage back with no post processing, it will look washed out. That is correct, its not supposed to be viewed this way (unless you do actually want a really washed out image!). Using Color Curves FX set in a "S" shape allows you to then correct for this flatness by selecting the areas of detail you want to see. If you have a dark scene say under a tree where you want to see the detail in the shadows, then lifting the blacks up (changing the curve) shows them. If you need better highlight detail, like sky and clouds, reducing the highs in the curve does that. This is the power of Cinestyle, its giving you a better choice in post to get the details you want to see.
Now of course, there are limits. And if you pull the curve too far you will get noise. That is a limit of the camera, but with some careful adjustment your images can look better. Shadows can have better details, skys can look blue with clouds rather than just peaked out whites. That the idea anyway. Within limits.

Edit: reading through your posts more closely, i think you know all this already - apologies for any repetition.

Paul.
Tim20 wrote on 10/1/2012, 7:26 AM
@Jason. Zoom in and step back was one of those I had forgotten thanks for the memory refresh. I think I do it more out of habit than remembering because I do closeups from about 15ft away using zoom to get close with the aperature open. From there I can vary the background detail.

Also it helps amateur actors feel more comfortable of not having a big camera stuck in their face.
wwjd wrote on 10/1/2012, 8:26 AM
more excellent feedback guys.

paul, yep I got that, but washed out my sky due to lack of experience. also made my own S curve based on Technicolor's model but it seemed to overdo the recovery effect - as in detail in shadows gone again (or my curve was too harsh)... either way I am loving how Cinestyle can expand the range of my camera. Sure, a little extra work in post, but everything goes through post anyway, right?
JasonATL wrote on 10/1/2012, 9:49 AM
wwjd - I don't have anything constructive to add to regarding the already good video and the excellent comments. Rather, my comment is on Cinestyle.

I have used Cinestyle quite a bit on a the T2i, T3i, and 5D Mark III. It works well in many circumstances and less so in others - and better on the 5D than the others. At one time, I thought I loved it. Personally, I have all but abandoned it after really being bitten by the banding issue in several shots. When adding back the contrast, the limits of the 8-bit 4:2:0 codec can start rearing their heads, most often showing up in banding in a gradient of the sky. This can also show up in skin tones. Grading in 32-bit in Vegas helps, but doesn't/can't eliminate this.

In my own shots, I've found Marvel's picture style (v3.3 and v3.4) to give me enough room in the highlights and shadows to get the detail I want (i.e., the contrast isn't baked in), whilst not showing some of the challenges that can crop up as I've stated above. I can even flatten it out in post, if I want a flatter look (which isn't never, but isn't often). I've looked at others, such as flaat. But, flaat to had an unappealing curve and colors just didn't look right to me.

My thinking is, if I'm going to add back the contrast anyway, then what am I really gaining? Why not shot with a profile that uses the entire range values (bits) for the image? The potential 0.5 stop dynamic range gain? Maybe. But, at what cost? Marvel or even Neutral shot with contrast at its lowest and saturation dialed down a bit are already fairly flat. Indeed, LaForet and Bloom both recommed these Neutral settings over Cinestyle.

Perhaps you or others can weigh in with thoughts about this. Perhaps I am using Cinestyle incorrectly.
wwjd wrote on 10/1/2012, 11:36 AM
Sounds like you've done a lot of good research. I have not encountered much banding but I have seen it in others. But, I don't do a ton of video either, just a hobby ATM. I understand the concept of Cinestyle as "compression", making more light and dark fit into the sensor provided, and this seems sound to me. We do it in audio, in computer data compression, and sort of in HDR photography. Record albums used to do it with the RIAA EQ curve going in and coming out, to fit audio on to vinyl.
So, it makes sense to me.

What I SEE in cinestyle is extra detail in the dark parts, maybe the light parts too but I didn't notice that really. So, if I am capturing MORE of the levels of light and dark into my camera sensor than is NORMALLY allowed (even on low sat, low contrast modes) I'm happy and can adjust everything better in post. If I want the shadows dark black, I do that. If I want them more grey showing the detail of what is in shaows I can do that. If you shot it, and the dark shadows are black, the detail is gone never to be seen again. you can't extract the detail when it is just all blackness. less chance of blow out top end, less chance of all black shadow detail.

I, too, tried FLAAT and it was fine, but cinestyle seemed flatter and more useful... I think.
Yesterday I downloaded MARVEL but haven't installed yet. I plan to have CINESTYLE, FLAAT11, and MAVEL loaded into my 3 availalbe profiles so I can have options whenever filming.
If I recall, praise from Laforet and Bloom were the reason I wanted to try it in the first place. Have they circled back around to normal mode now?

That said, I'm still very much a beginner so keep that in mind reading MY comments.
danv wrote on 10/2/2012, 9:01 AM
I just installed the Cinestyle program in my canon 5 D mark II.
I then downloaded the LUT from Majic Bullet, but it does not seem to be seen by my Cinefor, First Light program, which I use for color correcting ( rather than Vegas)...With First Light,( and the HdLink you use before hand) you have upsampled the canon video to 4-2-2 color or 4-4-4 colorspace, and you have far more detailed gradations possible in the color work you intend to do....This sounds ideal for the Cinestyle, but it would have been nice if I could find LUT's I could have as pre-sets.... any one else using this who might know?