Thread: C200...

Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ... 917181920 LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 194
  1. #181  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Wollongong, NSW Australia
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by yoclay View Post
    Excuse me ?
    Sorry, that's just plain rude.

    Why would anyone want to share anything here with that kind of attitude ?
    I can understand JB's frustration.

    The real question here is, what is your objective? Is it to find a solution, or to complain? To find a way to squeeze the best possible image from a BM camera, or to be captious?

    You say you're experienced and receive rushes "day in day out", but does that make you good at what you do? In my experience, just by doing something a lot is no indication of talent or ability. For example, a barista who ran a cafe at my workplace had been making coffees for over ten years at that time. It would be no exaggeration to say he'd make thousands of coffees each year. Yet he made a lousy coffee. There was not one person I knew of that liked his coffee - we'd all try to time our order to have his wife make the coffee, because then it would be good. Yet, no-one had the heart to tell him his coffee sucked - he was such a nice guy. On the one occasion I know of when he was told, he laughed it off as a joke.

    My point, you may be awesome, but if so, how could anyone here possibly know? Your contemptuous response to providing evidence leads to ambiguity. Experience alone doesn't make you good - getting better does.

    Often the quickest way for people to get better at anything, is to have others with more experience and knowledge to critique what you do, and provide guidance. It can be confronting, difficult and frightening to open yourself up that way, but ultimately it's necessary to go into our risk zones to improve sometimes. Anyone I know who is excellent at their craft - and I've been very lucky to work with a lot of people in many different industries - are totally willing to open themselves up this way. They have to be that way to grow. To provide evidence of their skills and depth of understanding.

    So, you may be perfectly accurate in your reporting, but without evidence - showing something, it is afterall a VISUAL medium - it's hard for anyone to take you seriously. Your argument feels erroneous and disputatious.

    Don't you want to provide the best possible results for your clients? Here you have the opportunity - access - to an incredibly experience DP, amongst others, who have proven time and time again that great results are possible from BM cameras. Don't you want to find out how those results are achieved, because clearly it's possible. The unambiguous evidence is there.

    Help us to understand by SHOWING us.
    Last edited by trispembo; 11-11-2017 at 11:56 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #182  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,516
    Blackmagic REC LUT are very poor with highlights.
    I saw the promo video of the C200 recently the one with the car and to me highlight roll off was not quite UM 4.6k using any of Kholi's LUT.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #183  
    Senior Member CaptainHook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,112
    The Rec709 LUT is the gamma curve defined by the standard, and the Video mode/LUT is basically the same gamma curve too - both intended to fit within traditional broadcast workflows. You'll find for instance they match very closely to Sony broadcast cameras with their standard output. They're not intended for a cinematic look with lots of highlight roll off, grading BMDFilm is for that workflow.
    Blackmagic Design
    My BMD LUTs.

    **Any post by me prior to Aug 2014 was before i started working for Blackmagic**
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #184  
    Quote Originally Posted by trispembo View Post
    I can understand JB's frustration.

    For example, a barista who ran a cafe at my workplace had been making coffees for over ten years at that time. It would be no exaggeration to say he'd make thousands of coffees each year. Yet he made a lousy coffee. My point, you may be awesome, but if so, how could anyone here possibly know? Your contemptuous response to providing evidence leads to ambiguity. Experience alone doesn't make you good - getting better does.

    Help us to understand by SHOWING us.
    Both sides have their points.I fully disclose JB and I have gone round on other forums and I with all do respect think he was incorrect. There were other times when he provided excellent information, and that was appreciated.
    JB even admits he had t work though several expisodes withi his colorists to finally get them to come around liking BM files.

    And they had the benefit of John to sort of spoon feed them through the process.

    So the fact is come colorists don't have John as resource and since there I isn't a published work though for us to see what John does with these colorists to get to them to convert.

    I absolutely agree that the first colorists complaints are legitimate.

    If that colorist had access to John and could spend some time on several projects I'd bet he'd come around to John's point of view.

    But if takes some much of an effort to get things like Johns colorists to have to do several expisodes before they come around it's too bad three isn't some documentation on how to do this.

    Is it some big secrect? I don't think so. It just is something, some majic, John knows that isn't available as a written workflow document ton how to get the best of BM cameras.

    Maybe JB is right and should write a book.

    I think there is something about the workflow for BM cameras that isn't obvious to a lot of colorists and that information should be distilled and distributed so threads don't exist about how much trouble some colorists have with BM footage/.

    I think the OP is being honest.

    I agree that if he could supply samples he'd get more answers to this complaint.

    I've seen his complaint many times.

    Maybe it's time for a white paper on how colorize BM camera footage.

    I think JB gets a little impatient. But I thin his intent, although biased, is to truly resolve the problem.

    I hope that at some point that can be made that reconciles the issue. I think both JB and the OP have legitimate comments.

    Just my 2c
    Last edited by RAWlover; 11-11-2017 at 09:45 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #185  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by paulrossjones View Post
    The files out of the c200 really is closer to usable IMO.
    That's because it can bake in looks, the BMD cameras were never designed for doing things that way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #186  
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Atlanta Georgia
    Posts
    2,756
    It always takes a while for any camera that’s new to a colourist to settle in and for them to get their eye in.

    I’ve always been an early adopter. I’ve walked new cameras with colourists many times. I’ve done it with the Si2k. I did it with the first network TV series to shoot RED in Oz. I did it with the AF 100, GH2’s, F55s.

    If the colourist hasn’t gotten some flight hours up with a camera they haven’t learned how to push and pull it around. It always takes time.

    JB
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #187  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    929
    Quote Originally Posted by RAWlover View Post
    JB even admits he had t work though several expisodes withi his colorists to finally get them to come around liking BM files.
    He didn't "admit" it, it's normal. People need time to get comfortable when they are confronted with new things, especially when that new thing is outside their usual routines.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #188  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Finnigan View Post
    Not really. They just want you to back up your claims if you are going to keep saying it. Most others have a different experience than you.
    Basically. I'm not trying to be hostile at all--in fact, I admire this objective/scientific approach. But if it really *is* objective, it should be measurable. The seemingly varying bit range (or however we want to call it) in certain color gamuts is certainly something that should be measurable and repeatable, if it exists.

    Like I said, I'm a newb scrub compared to y'all. I just want more stuff to learn.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #189  
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Atlanta Georgia
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by RAWlover View Post

    But if takes some much of an effort to get things like Johns colorists to have to do several expisodes before they come around it's too bad three isn't some documentation on how to do this.

    Is it some big secrect? I don't think so. It just is something, some majic, John knows that isn't available as a written workflow document ton how to get the best of BM cameras.

    Maybe JB is right and should write a book.
    I don't need to write a book, but I constantly see very experienced colourists with questionable practices.

    I am not a colourist, but I do see that colourists, just like cinematographers, have their own practices and ways of doing things. I'm not one to tell someone how to do their job, they have to learn and adapt their processes themselves.

    I constantly see colourists who have a creative eye, but don't fundamentally understand how Resolve works for example. That there's a difference in what a LUT can do vs grading directly. There's a recent post here that illustrates this.
    http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.ph...otage-Tutorial

    Yet I see and talk to many experienced colourists who are capable of doing great work, better than I could ever imagine I could do with all the time in the world, but they do it despite a misunderstanding of the way their tools work. Now if they get results, who cares really. The same thing happens on set. There's no "right" way to do anything. Creative process can be totally wrong and still produce amazing results. That's the beauty of it.

    But when you get a new camera that behaves in a different way, then you do get colourists complaining because

    "It doesn't work"

    I did a job not so long ago and the colourist was applying the Alexa REC709 LUT to all the Ursa footage. I could see it in his timeline. When I asked him why he was doing that he told me "it makes the images easier to grade, makes it behave more like an Alexa...it's a better starting point". Now he's used to grading an Alexa, so what's wrong with him wanting to make it grade the way he expects an Alexa to grade ?

    Well, once you've been doing it a while you start to notice that it's a cheat that can work a lot of the time, but there are going to be times where you get unrecoverable issues. This is exactly what happened with some super saturated street signs. You ask about it in the session and they throw their hands in the air and say

    "that's all that can be done, I can't pull that information back"

    If you yourself don't know as the cinematographer that the images could be better, are you brave enough to tell the senior colourist of a major facility they're doing it wrong ? Even if you did would you ?

    I have been in that position and takes time to walk a colourist around to changing their practices, to trying something else.

    For me it was "let's try without the Arri LUT applied". There was a sense of that won't work, a lot of cursing because they had to push the image around a lot more, but eventually we solved the problem.

    When working with a new colourist I always ask what LUT's and transforms they're applying because nine times out of ten this is what causes most of the issues.

    Juan's tutorial better illustrates this issue better than I can above, so watch even just the first few mins.

    I recently had the honour and privilege of working with one of the most well known and respected colourists working today and it was wonderful. First of all he was unbelievably fast, so much that I could barely keep up with what he was doing. And then I noticed his node tree. A lot of the time it was a single node.

    One. Node.

    Every now and then he'd do some qualification and add a couple of nodes when he needed to.

    When I asked him about it, he said he preferred to keep it simple and do it all in the one node so the image doesn't get "confused".

    It's the opposite of a trend Ive seen lately. One session I went to the node tree had 15 odd nodes in it for every single shot, before we'd really started the session ! I asked about why the colourist did that and he said he liked to have little windows and qualifiers "pre-built" because it's faster to grade.

    I've seen and worked with both and I can tell you for sure who was faster to grade.

    Now, like I say, whom am I to question the way a process works, as long as we get the result we want.

    But I often see colourists processes not being able to be flexible enough with THEIR processes or be adaptable enough to get the most from a new camera (not just a BMD one).

    I had EXACTLY the same conversations with colourists when I first started working wth RED. I had a standup yelling match with a senior colourist at a facility that's now gone out of business over some footage from a new prototype camera called a D20. I asked them why they couldn't make the footage look as good as the REC709 footage looked on set....

    This is not a question of their creative ability to make a beautiful grade or take my ordinary shot and make it beautiful. This is about setting up your process and work environment to get the most.

    And this is PRECISELY why I think you have no credibility making a claim about the ability of a BMD image to be graded when you do not post an example of a RAW image. Because I've had this conversation in various forms so many times, and so far, I've always found that it's not true.

    So prove me wrong.

    JB
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #190  
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainHook View Post
    There is. The results are sensor spectral response/sensitivity curves. Something like...
    Something new for me. Thanks for the links!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •