Then as shadows are getting lifted and therefore noise may become more prominent, Tech profile squews a bit to the blue channel to try to minimise the visibility of the noise. Technicolor profile massages those squeezed levels to lift the QT crush and makes it look like it’s recovering lost shadow detail, the details already there in the movs, if only it wasn’t squeezed, Tech profile is partly trying to undo the alterations QT has done. Squeezing that luma artificially induces contrast which a camera profile then has to try and undo. So video black 16 is mapped to 0 RGB and 235 white is mapped 255 RGB. QT is the culprit, it squeezes the luma upto 16 so if anyone captures shadows below 16 they crush and any highlights down to 235, because that’s the ‘typical’ conversion range to RGB which NLE’s do to color correct even the 1D LUT is applied to the video as RGB data. At all.įloris, I think you’re very right. The image looks like ungraded telecine, but it isn’t. To me this feels like the emperor’s clothes. Also the ungraded image is awful to look at, you need an extra grading step in post to even judge the image. You are essentially lowering the bit depth of your camera to about 6 or 7 bits, because the S-curve will squash together a lot of the shadows on the highlights and consequently leave a lot of gaps in the middle of the histogram.ĭuring shooting it’s harder to imagine what the final image is going to look like and it’s harder to focus, due to the low contrast. Check it yourself: even with the lenscap on the image is still grey. So there is no extra information down there. The zero blacks have been lifted to a 8% grey, so the lowest bits aren’t used at all, throwing away precious space in the 8-bit container. It’s even worse, because of a few reasons: There is no extra information in either the shadows or the highlights in these Technicolor settings compared to, say, Stu Maschwitz flat settings or even the overly saturated Kodachrome II picture style. I’ve done some pixel peeping and found the following:
I think this picture style is actually smoke and mirrors. There’s just too many “And” “If” “But” and “Providing that…”.Ĭanon just bought another week or month before people will start asking where’s 5D mk III…
I really don’t think so in this particular case.
It’s just that once again, we were fooled into thinking that anything and everything is possible – for anybody and everybody. that the limits were stretched once again. I was thinking (and I guess most of us did) that we found the (almost) ultimate weapon for “do-it-yourself” high quality videography. Most of us (myself included) simply don’t have enough experience dealing with the meanings of using this picture style.
#Technicolor cinestyle lut how to
They can bury you if you do not choose the right one for your project, but your ability to know how to light and understand exposures comes with experience – film experience”. “So, I have to say this about picture styles in general. I find myself liking less and less this picture style. Technicolor CineStyle vs Marvels Cine Style Test with S-curve LUT from on Vimeo. Testing: Technicolor Cinestyle Picture Profile from 31Films on Vimeo. Technicolor CineStyle 5D Mark II test from Joran Maaswinkel on Vimeo. Technicolor Cinestyle Picture Style on 550D – Split screen from Gareth Edwards on Vimeo. Technicolor Cinestyle Profile Test on Canon 5D MKII from Martin Whittier on Vimeo.Ħ0D Cinestyle Profile Comparison from Aidan Metcalfe on Vimeo. Very interesting to read the comments below as there seems to be hesitation if what the picture profile is doing is a good or a bad thing…and try it out for yourself to see! I have 20+ shooters footage from the Brussels workshop to cut into a short. Here are a few of my readers tests for you to look at. The new Technicolor Cinestyle has taken the DSLR world by storm.
0 kommentar(er)
