Return-Path: Received: from mout.perfora.net ([74.208.4.195] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 5265730 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 01:11:31 +0200 Received: from [192.168.0.10] (CPE-72-135-117-181.new.res.rr.com [72.135.117.181]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus3) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MVeOF-1VBhzi0dep-00YDys; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 19:12:42 -0400 From: Steve Oakley Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_43FF0583-35A8-470B-9949-0EEB0C9500BB" Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\)) Subject: Re: [AE] 29.97 versus 23.976 for corporate? Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 18:12:43 -0500 References: To: After Effects Mail List In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816) X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:3lGUEOGBSDbaK1q4MQmOcdbMheh8e74hlHeYVmlTdY6 ptdDnUop8QFAPRfptSsAZpBye/bYq9c+o8tl7CCH58ecL7ueKT R202hhtH3gcONRTYHDDa5MpCESy+bI3Nf/1IJs6Ovu3xxPRaZv Cqp4tH2/7epzvtnJWYKPMRGq7jZX0SjcJOk1DNbNUk0dByLrb2 13fYZu+cnL58HAAQR7hBj5NU8tfjWGePeKMlgyQ+haUBBdM/1w yZy/IH5mnBVDm4gUTNsvwMIJyloT8O+/X/fNLONpR0NF6VRzVS dqYrQ9H8EGzWUqUJ8AcOkcRbAUEdRGHL4MxIHZAd6yX2f3lzVL PFnTXgEauoczz8tsKnT/IGDsiUd7IxbF07dyeeCxAI5GVs7wKV 5mItfy8C/LfvA== --Apple-Mail=_43FF0583-35A8-470B-9949-0EEB0C9500BB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 what headaches down what road ? there are no proxies here. no off line / = online or other workflow silliness. no one is doing multiple grades for = the most part. its Edit / Comp, Mix & Grade, output & deliver. if any = comping is done, its at the pre grade stage in C log. Its been working = very well. The LUTs are vastly too contrasty / saturated. Its far more work to = apply LUT and grade back to something good than to take the C Log, = adjust black level, white level maybe a small gamma & saturation = adjustment and its looking good... in fact WAY better than the LUTS = which are throwing away the gradation the camera delivers. LUTS are = making something film like video like. S On Oct 26, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Teddy Gage wrote: > wait... you're grading raw log c without a LUT? that's crazy man. That = means a lot of headaches down the road... >=20 >=20 > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Steve Oakley = wrote: >=20 > On Oct 25, 2013, at 7:34 PM, Chris Zwar wrote: > > But my gut instinct is to agree with James and suggest that fps is = secondary to things like depth of field, lighting and colour grading and = so I'm a bit surprised no-one else has really commented or debated this. > > I would think that something shot 29.97 that is well lit, has a = shallow depth of field and is nicely graded would look much more filmic = that something shot 23.976 using only available light, ungraded and with = everything in focus. > > If I had a client who wanted something "filmic" then I wouldn't = worry about the fps, I would just go to town with something like Magic = Bullet Looks. >=20 > 30p is its own look somewhere between 30i and 24p. its less video = looking and fewer stuttering effects when panning too fast. >=20 > that said, I recently bought a C100 and its changed my shooting a lot. = a few weeks ago I was working on rigging a pair of lights in tight = space, working on diffusion and then tried something. I shut them off, = turned up the ISO a bit and had a perfectly great image. I still added a = LED into the BG, but it was dimmed to about 30% to open that space up. = the big diffused window light was what I wanted all along and simple = assumed I'd have to remake my own because my expected ISO of 320 was = well under. instead the camera let me go to 1200 or 1600 and it was = perfect. In fact that one scene changed how I shot the rest of the day. = While I'd always been a fan of supplemental light rather than relighting = when working locations, this camera ( and others like it ) have changed = this to a whole new level. I used a 1X1 LED outside to light up some = trees as part of some night scenes. we had to cut them down considerably = because they were actually too bright as compared to the interior light = level. so don't diss available light. sometimes it looks great and all = you need is a bounce fill or small fixture or to in order to make it = great rather than a whole grip truck of gak + big lights because the = camera can't make the exposure. thats all changed. >=20 > grading shooting C log as been great. while I've tweaked out a better = setting than canon's, I'm not using LUTs as they tend to make a very = fimlic image look like video. instead I'm grading the raw C Log with = really great results. In fact its generally trivial the amount of = grading this camera needs when shot well. >=20 > S >=20 >=20 >=20 > +---End of message---+ > To unsubscribe send any message to >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > VFX & Motion Graphic artist > NEW - teddygage.com >=20 --Apple-Mail=_43FF0583-35A8-470B-9949-0EEB0C9500BB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 what = headaches down what road ? there are no proxies here. no off line / = online or other workflow silliness. no one is doing multiple grades for = the most part. its Edit / Comp, Mix & Grade, output & deliver. = if any comping is done, its at the pre grade stage in C log. Its been = working very well.

 The LUTs are vastly too = contrasty / saturated. Its far more work to apply LUT and grade back to = something good than to take the C Log, adjust black level, white level = maybe a small gamma & saturation adjustment and its looking good... = in fact WAY better than the LUTS which are throwing away the gradation = the camera delivers. LUTS are making something film like video = like.

S

On Oct = 26, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Teddy Gage <teddygage@gmail.com> = wrote:

wait... you're grading raw log c without = a LUT? that's crazy man. That means a lot of headaches down the = road...


On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Steve Oakley = <steveo@practicali.com> wrote:

On Oct 25, 2013, at 7:34 PM, Chris Zwar <chris@chriszwar.com> = wrote:
> But my gut instinct is to agree with James and suggest that fps is = secondary to things like depth of field, lighting and colour grading and = so I'm a bit surprised no-one else has really commented or debated = this.
> I would think that something shot 29.97 that is well lit, has a = shallow depth of field and is nicely graded would look much more filmic = that something shot 23.976 using only available light, ungraded and with = everything in focus.
> If I had a client who wanted something "filmic" then I wouldn't = worry about the fps, I would just go to town with something like Magic = Bullet Looks.

30p is its own look somewhere between 30i and 24p. its less video = looking and fewer stuttering effects when panning too fast.

that said, I recently bought a C100 and its changed my shooting a lot. a = few weeks ago I was working on rigging a pair of lights in tight space, = working on diffusion and then tried something. I shut them off, turned = up the ISO a bit and had a perfectly great image. I still added a LED = into the BG, but it was dimmed to about 30% to open that space up. the = big diffused window light was what I wanted all along and simple assumed = I'd have to remake my own because my expected ISO of 320 was well under. = instead the camera let me go to 1200 or 1600 and it was perfect. In fact = that one scene changed how I shot the rest of the day. While I'd always = been a fan of supplemental light rather than relighting when working = locations, this camera ( and others like it ) have changed this to a = whole new level. I used a 1X1 LED outside to light up some trees as part = of some night scenes. we had to cut them down considerably because they = were actually too bright as compared to the interior light level. so = don't diss available light. sometimes it looks great and all you need is = a bounce fill or small fixture or to in order to make it great rather = than a whole grip truck of gak + big lights because the camera can't = make the exposure. thats all changed.

grading shooting C log as been great. while I've tweaked out a better = setting than canon's, I'm not using LUTs as they tend to make a very = fimlic image look like video. instead I'm grading the raw C Log with = really great results. In fact its generally trivial the amount of = grading this camera needs when shot well.

S



+---End of message---+
To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>



--

= --Apple-Mail=_43FF0583-35A8-470B-9949-0EEB0C9500BB--