Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This are the 2 jpeg I took from the slog clips once I graded them...

 

16446aa97a307885f5d0026c83a0e095.jpg

 

1773527120c34cfc15bbe19bbb70ab89.jpg

 

Soooo now I will have to try SLOG at -20m to see how it works...

Edited by TaxiDiver14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Setup ready 4 next week !!!

Good to have someone guarding the expensive equipment ;) Is that a Seacam housing or Subal? Just nosy....

Edited by bubffm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to have someone guarding the expensive equipment ;) Is that a Seacam housing or Subal? Just nosy....

Seacam and its bodyguard...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as I saw with vectorscope and waveform. All of the shots are overexposed ( remember to underexpose -0.7ev ).

Not the problem with slog that has lot of information on highlights but allmost nothing in lows. Very low saturation aswell.

Nothing I couldnt fix in 1minute with a contrast curve and the color balance...

If you send me your email I will give you access to some of the original footage of the magenta nightmare. That way you can color correct it. thanks, GLP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This are the 2 jpeg I took from the slog clips once I graded them...

 

16446aa97a307885f5d0026c83a0e095.jpg

 

 

 

Soooo now I will have to try SLOG at -20m to see how it works...

 

Not bad, Taxidiver. But to my eyes, the water is a bit too purple, and the coral too flat. Overall, I don't think it's any better than the no picture profile footage. Here's a JPEG taken from the no picture profile footage with a very straight-forward grade -- levels/contrast and desaturating the green/aqua a bit.

 

I think you'll find that your problem at 20m isn't the gamma profile, it's the white balance. UAWB pretty much falls apart around 10-12m. And I don't think the manual white balance (which requires a filter at those depths) is any good either.

 

As for overexposure, I think I shot this footage in auto-ISO mode, wide metering mode, EV set to 0. While there might be some slight clipping in the areas where the sunlight is reflecting off the sand, I don't find this at all distracting or unnatural personally. Sure, I could've exposed a stop lower to save those highlights, but that would've meant the midtones of the coral would've been underexposed. So I would have had to boost that in post at the expense of noise in those areas. A bit of highlight clipping isn't always bad. It creates more contrast in the scene.

 

post-42872-0-12975100-1473426787_thumb.jpg

Edited by dreifish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So actually is just which one you like more. You can get the same place in two ways. I have know what to do at 20m.... TORCHES. And I love to shoot at 30 or 40m..... is much easier !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GP7 I graded your clips. Tell me If you like them now...

 

https://vimeo.com/181971242

 

Ok I saw em on my phone and blacks are too red so I will have to correct that...

Well the deep shot is so defective with its magenta color that I don't think anything could help it. The question is, if it had been shot in a sLog profile, would it be easier to correct?

 

Thanks for taking the time to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the deep shot is so defective with its magenta color that I don't think anything could help it. The question is, if it had been shot in a sLog profile, would it be easier to correct?

 

Thanks for taking the time to do that.

 

No, it would be even harder to correct. SLOG is meant to solve issues with dynamic range -- i.e. a very contrasty scene where the brightest part of the image and the darkest parts of the image are more than 7-8 stops apart. The scene you filmed isn't one of those situations. It's easy to tell -- just put up the histogram when recording the video or a waveform monitor in your video editor. Most likely, when shooting with no picture profile, you'll find that neither your blacks nor your whites are clipping. So you can easily represent all of the image in 7-8 stops of the standard no picture profile. All SLOG will do is compress those 7-8 stops of contrast into 3-4 instead.

 

After further testing over the past two days, I've basically found no situations where you NEED more than 7-8 stops shooting ambient light underwater. Think about it -- all those particles in the water strip away contrast resulting in a very flat image. That's why the most important rule of underwater photography/videography is to get as close to your subject as possible. The only situation where the scene has greater contrast than that is if you're shooting directly into the sun AND you're trying to preserve detail in the highlights AND the shadows (as opposed to just silhuetting whatever you're shooting against the sun). How often do you find yourself doing this with ambient light underwater?

 

SLOG only helps you preserve more luminance detail. It does not help you preserve more color detail. In fact, because it compresses the luminance range, it actually preserves less color detail. So no.. color correction of SLOG footage is never going to be easier than color correction of non-slog footage.

 

I will try to post some more of the tests I've done, including some UAWB tests in the 10-12 meter range and using all the different picture styles to see which creates the best colors over the next few days (or weeks.. I have a busy week next week). In the meantime, I'll leave you with another screen grab from a video shot today. No picture profile, picture style standard, 3m, underwater auto white balance. post-42872-0-04957100-1473518126_thumb.jpg

Edited by dreifish
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, it would be even harder to correct. SLOG is meant to solve issues with dynamic range -- i.e. a very contrasty scene where the brightest part of the image and the darkest parts of the image are more than 7-8 stops apart. The scene you filmed isn't one of those situations. It's easy to tell -- just put up the histogram when recording the video or a waveform monitor in your video editor. Most likely, when shooting with no picture profile, you'll find that neither your blacks nor your whites are clipping. So you can easily represent all of the image in 7-8 stops of the standard no picture profile. All SLOG will do is compress those 7-8 stops of contrast into 3-4 instead.

 

After further testing over the past two days, I've basically found no situations where you NEED more than 7-8 stops shooting ambient light underwater. Think about it -- all those particles in the water strip away contrast resulting in a very flat image. That's why the most important rule of underwater photography/videography is to get as close to your subject as possible. The only situation where the scene has greater contrast than that is if you're shooting directly into the sun AND you're trying to preserve detail in the highlights AND the shadows (as opposed to just silhuetting whatever you're shooting against the sun). How often do you find yourself doing this with ambient light underwater?

 

SLOG only helps you preserve more luminance detail. It does not help you preserve more color detail. In fact, because it compresses the luminance range, it actually preserves less color detail. So no.. color correction of SLOG footage is never going to be easier than color correction of non-slog footage.

 

I will try to post some more of the tests I've done, including some UAWB tests in the 10-12 meter range and using all the different picture styles to see which creates the best colors over the next few days (or weeks.. I have a busy week next week). In the meantime, I'll leave you with another screen grab from a video shot today. No picture profile, picture style standard, 3m, underwater auto white balance. attachicon.gif20160910-.jpg

THANK YOU Dreifish!!!. This short explanation of log profiles is the best I have seen anywhere, and I have been researching far and wide. So it all makes sense. Underwater, where the light has been filtered and diffused by particulates, there would appear to be much less dynamic range than above ground in the air, where the light is often more of a point source, leaving bright highlights and dark shadows. So it would seem that sLog would indeed be quite valuable for other of my nature cinematography, and for contrasty scenes, but very little underwater, unless you are shooting right under the surface, but even then, it would not appear to be worth the hassle.

 

George's Next Trip -- this Thursday. For now, for me no picture profile on next trip. I will see how far I can get using UAWB, without using a red filter, both how shallow and how deep. I will also experiment with something I had not tried before. I will see what the UAWB does, and then see if I can fine tune things further on either temperature, or by using the color adjustment scales. Very roughly, I will see if I can get the display on the monitor to look as much as possible as what my eyes are seeing. Obviously this would work better on a fancy outboard monitor, but I don't have one. I will see what the display can do. I wish I knew how that UAWB works, but I bet that is almost impossible to know.

 

I am diving in the Cayman Islands next (never been there before) but I hear they have great visibility. Much better than the slightly murky, green water of the Sea of Cortez where I dove last trip. I will share the Sea of Cortez film I am editing soon, or perhaps certain clips that illustrate what I encountered. One of my conclusions, and this is obvious but sometimes the obvious needs to be rediscovered at least by me (constantly), is that the lighting conditions, and visibility, and color of the light above the water, and whether you are shooting into the sun, all can combine to make shots look vastly different on the same day. For example, in the test clips I posted far above here, shot in the Sea of Cortez, at one moment the sea looked dark blue, and at another, it looked a little green. That was what it looked like. Shots taken in different directions even in the same place can look different. This is also another way that underwater cinematography differs from conventional cinematography. In conventional editing, editors and colorists spend huge amounts of time trying to make all the cuts look the same, as far as color and other attributes, so that there will be continuity in presentation. But this would seem to be very hard with underwater films.

 

The Ambient Light White Balance Challenge is Funadamental. Next, and perhaps this is obvious too or it may be wrong, I think the less color correction you do, the better. Best is none. I bet none gives a better overall image as far as contrast and dynamic range and perhaps even resolution and presentation. This is because there is no computer program messing with the information the sensor has recorded. The processing will smear out what has been recorded in the pixels. I am guessing at this but I bet it is right. THUS, it would appear that white balance, and all these conversations we have been having, are critical. It would appear to be a key to underwater photography -- at least when one is using ambient light, rather than light one brings down under the water, the temperature of which is known and can be controlled.

 

GLP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THANK YOU Dreifish!!!. This short explanation of log profiles is the best I have seen anywhere, and I have been researching far and wide. So it all makes sense. Underwater, where the light has been filtered and diffused by particulates, there would appear to be much less dynamic range than above ground in the air, where the light is often more of a point source, leaving bright highlights and dark shadows. So it would seem that sLog would indeed be quite valuable for other of my nature cinematography, and for contrasty scenes, but very little underwater, unless you are shooting right under the surface, but even then, it would not appear to be worth the hassle.

 

Totally agree, I have learnt a lot thanks to you guys all. Me too no picture profile after such a great explanation. The only thing I might do is pushing the AWB color matrix a bit toward red to get a nice blue background for my wide angle shots/clips and take it from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First day no PP. M1 set with AWB for lights shooting. M2 set with UAWB for ambience shooting.

 

Second day no PP. M1 set with AWB A+3,M+3 for lights shooting. M2 set with UAWB A+3,M+3 ambience shooting.

 

Third day red filter on, no PP. M1 WB 3500K G+4 lights shooting. M2 UAWB ambience shooting.

 

Lets beging with this...

Edited by TaxiDiver14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First day no PP. M1 set with AWB for lights shooting. M2 set with UAWB for ambience shooting.

 

Second day no PP. M1 set with AWB A+3,M+3 for lights shooting. M2 set with UAWB A+3,M+3 ambience shooting.

 

Third day red filter on, no PP. M1 WB 3500K G+4 lights shooting. M2 UAWB ambience shooting.

 

Lets beging with this...

 

 

Sounds like a good plan. Please do let us know of the results, or post the clips!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First day done. Without seen footage on laptop yet. But feeling I took some great shots. I like torches and FF shooting with de 16-35 a LOT......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Es

 

First day done. Without seen footage on laptop yet. But feeling I took some great shots. I like torches and FF shooting with de 16-35 a LOT......

 

 

Excellent! Hope you are having fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pics of the day...

 

d17a7988d6a1a09ddf99c386be18230e.jpg

 

401ece177418c11991964675efc26b31.jpg

 

58e8dd8cde954e5fb2d7c59d8d1c0eba.jpg

 

fb30643572721033ddad11ca8f42dc42.jpg

 

58ab92e1865a80744161047a9c26a1b9.jpg

 

8207ddbd5a2d7ab9d52e2e0cdfba837a.jpg

 

Viz was poor and I needed to shoot very close in FF to get any colours from lights.

UAWB doing well until 13m adding matrix A+2,M+2.

I like more PP4 REC709 than no PP. Less saturation and easier to grade.

Tomorow will try PP6.

Edited by TaxiDiver14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great thread! Thanks to all that contributed.

Only an RX100Mk4 user and doing mostly video with it but the WB issues are the same.

I ll try to post some test videos later on.

Slog2 i find it very useful in scenes like the inside of a cavern looking at the bright light of the entrance. If you expose for the cavern and not using Slog your highlights are completely blown if you protect the highlights then everything else is black. Slog2 gives a happy medium but still need a lot of attention on how you expose otherwise its too noisy at least on the RX100.

Just got a Ninja 2 monitor so i ll try to see how much difference the increased amount of information ( Prores hq 4-2-2) will do on grading.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great thread! Thanks to all that contributed.

Only an RX100Mk4 user and doing mostly video with it but the WB issues are the same.

I ll try to post some test videos later on.

Slog2 i find it very useful in scenes like the inside of a cavern looking at the bright light of the entrance. If you expose for the cavern and not using Slog your highlights are completely blown if you protect the highlights then everything else is black. Slog2 gives a happy medium but still need a lot of attention on how you expose otherwise its too noisy at least on the RX100.

Just got a Ninja 2 monitor so i ll try to see how much difference the increased amount of information ( Prores hq 4-2-2) will do on grading.

 

 

Thanks Lionfi2s. You are the first person to state that he has really found a use for Log profiles. That is interesting. If you can do some comparative tests, to illustrate the differences, that would be excellent!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay Guys:

 

First day of filming in Grand Cayman. Here are two clips both using underwater auto white balance. Both clips have NO MAGIC FILTER. First clip I used video lights to try to illuminate the foreground. Second clip, no lights. NO COLOR CORRECTION on either clip.

 

Both of these clips were filmed at approximately 60 feet depth. This was the top of a vertical wall that plunged WAY DOWN, which is what the Caymans are famous for.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...