Mini 2 - Flat Grading

[McGanksta]

So I watched this video the other day

So, first off, I understand that this LUT only flattens the colors, and my question has nothing to do with REC->LOG conversion.

But I am about to start shooting some areas around where I live, and while the best option would be to shoot in the same light as much as possible, but I dont think that is going to happen, would using a LUT like this be a decent starting point to get the footage in the same basic ballpark before adding other LUTs of is there a better process?

Still new and learning (Using HitFilm Express)

Thanks
McG

 

[SethB]

I watched the clip, scratching my head all the while, trying to understand the pros and cons of this unconventional workflow.

I do believe that no color or luminance resolution can be added through these conversions. LUT or 709-to-LOG, it is a look-up-and-replace process, without any possibility of creating new intermediate values. It is a dumb interpretation to remap color/luma values. A transposition.

That leads me to think that all the final grades demonstrated can also be achieved through conventional correction and grading.

The creator clearly has a great eye for color grading, and has invested in many LUTs to help accelerate his workflow, especially in matching drone footage to a variety of pro cameras.

I think this is a good context to understand benefits of this unconventional workflow. At the end of the day, does it allow you to get to the results you want faster? There’s certainly value in that. Fewer clicks, less finagling with individual clip characteristics by neutralizing clips is the typical goal of color correction. Then, clips start in roughly the same place when a LUT and/or other grading is applied.

If faster, that’s a tremendous benefit, giving more time for the fun creative decisions or getting a little more sleep. Color work will suck up as much time as you’re willing to give it!

Test it. See if it makes you faster at the color tasks you do! Having some footage graded conventionally to compare with the 709 Log-conversion-to-LUT workflow will help you understand benefits to you. Does it take less time to achieve the same results? Can you achieve better results in less time?

 

[eEridani]

Start with the assumption any image conversion is generally lossy. If the video will be important, only shoot with tech you completely understand and are fluent with.

You can turn off auto-color correction to gain some control over chroma, basically set the light color temp to 5500 and leave it, then do color balance manually later (if color accuracy is important, shoot a white or gray card or color card with each flight so you can correct in studio). Let auto exposure do it's job to maintain exposure and dynamic range unless you need to splice or stack or plan exposure tricks like vignetting. But at that point, over a few days of shooting, you'll need to be handy with ND filters and exposure settings (using the histogram will be mandatory).

 

[McGanksta]

Again, lets start with I am new....

I do have a basic, but aged skill set in photography, but that was/is analog/film skills.

First, thank you both for adding value to my question. I live in Colorado, so harsh sun is a real issue, i have ND from 4-64 but have not used them yet, was going to shoot today, but life happened.

I have about 3 hours experience at any sort of film/video editing and almost non at color grading. All I can decipher from the internet is that it seems to be a lot of personal/artistic choice as to what looks right.

For the record, I did understand that the LUT was a color grade, and does not create data that is not there, but simply moves the existing data around to achieve a "flat" look similar to LOG footage.

In the end, I guess it does come down to me figuring out my work flow and how I want to achieve coloring....or more to the point how much time and effort I want to spend on this aspect of the hobby because the end results are really just for me, at least for now.

Again thank you for your input

McG

 

[eEridani]

From the sound of it - unless you want to become a professional video editor - set the camera to auto and enjoy flying the drone while it takes video for you.

So far, I've found my flying technique messes up any video I try to take, thumb tremors are killing me here, so color balance, exposure control, and content is virtually ignorable.

As for intentionally trying to manage things like color grading, that is a fairly advanced skillset, at least to achieve the tones and highlights you see in pro videos. Like any art form, there are quick studies who master all this in days, but it generally takes hours and hours of study and practice to make any video work flow work well (similar to a photo work flow - unless you understand what a RAW image represents, there is really no sense using a RAW format). Then, once you understand what it is you are trying to achieve on a regular basis, find your style if you will, you'll be able to choose a work flow that works for you.

 

[eEridani]

As for what a look up table is; you seem to have a misunderstanding there. So if I were you I'd step back and do more reading and learning before trying to apply a table to your video. That is really quite advanced, and requires a firm understanding of the camera, the process, and the intended application of the video. For example, do you want to compress highlights or stretch shadow detail, like altering the video gamma so the video plays well on a stadium screen?

I'm no expert in video, but I know the terminology from other work, and it isn't exactly straight forward.

 

[Dave Maine]

LUTS only mimic what color grading can do, perhaps more easily. Shooting “flat” footage with the camera initially is for a different purpose. It’s goal is to provide the user with original footage that has the maximum dynamic range which can be used later with color correction to take advantage of this range.

LUTS just flatten the limited range of what has already been captured, adding no dynamic range in the process.

 

[McGanksta]

LUTS only mimic what color grading can do, perhaps more easily. Shooting “flat” footage with the camera initially is for a different purpose. It’s goal is to provide the user with original footage that has the maximum dynamic range which can be used later with color correction to take advantage of this range.

LUTS just flatten the limited range of what has already been captured, adding no dynamic range in the process.

That I can grasp and understand - about the "flat" shooting profile.

I guess my real question is, with my MM2, "flat" is not an option right now, so if I have mismatched footage from different days and shooting conditions, would applying a LUT such as the one mentioned in the video, or one like it, help to bring the footage to a decent starting point to do further post processing?

McG

 

[SethB]

…I guess my real question is, with my MM2, "flat" is not an option right now, so if I have mismatched footage from different days and shooting conditions, would applying a LUT such as the one mentioned in the video, or one like it, help to bring the footage to a decent starting point to do further post processing?

McG

I don’t think so, no, and especially not for where you’re at in your learning about color correction and color grading. There is no magic bullet here, other than automatic camera settings usually getting you close as @eEridani mentions above.

Get some experience, consider a course on correction on LinkedIn Learning (formerly lynda.com) or something.

Some of the basics of color correction are found in all tools, and can be practiced casually as you develop your eye for color:
1) Exposure, contrast
2) Color temperature and tint
3) Blacks, shadows, highlights, whites
4) Saturation
You would usually go through these quickly in apx this order, then go back as needed. Details in highlight and shadow areas, having white appear as white, being faithful to people’s skin tones are the typical goals in correction. But not always!

Get familiar with what under and over exposure looks like with whatever monitoring tool is in your software - histogram, waveform, etc.

Most correction software offers many more tools, but all these are in the “basic” set of functions. Ignore the rest for a while!

My own familiarity is with Lightroom and Photoshop (similar, both embed what used to be known as Adobe Camera Raw), and the Lumetri Color workspace in Premiere Pro.

I developed my eye and conceptual linkages in my brain between the controls listed above and their effect on photos through color correcting thousands of photos I shot with my DSLR.

That really really helped so much in correcting video. When Adobe updated Premiere to the Lumetri tools I found I had all the concepts and practices I needed.

In short: doing color develops your eye for color, and, for what you like to see in your work. The conversion to Log color for correction/grading seems to me a very advanced workflow refinement, not a one-click solution for correction or grading.

 

[McGanksta]

Just want to thank you all for all the thoughtful conversations in this topic!

McG

 

[FlyingFilmmaker]

Basically converting to LOG then back again is useless, and probably makes things worse. The only advantage of LOG is that it can take the RAW data from the sensor, and compress more of it into the small h.264 codec of the sensor instead of throwing it away in the process of adding contrast. If you're not generating the LOG straight from the sensor data, it can only make things worse.

As far as matching shots, taking it into LOG before grading won't do much for you. The basic tools you'll want to use for matching shots are white balance, exposure, contrast, and saturation. Of course you can do even more with advanced tools like HSL curves and vectorscopes, but the basic tools will do a lot.

I noticed you're using HitFilm Express, which is what I started out using. It DOES work, but it's actually not that great for editing and color grading, as it's more focused on VFX. I switched to the free version on Davinci Resolve, which is WAY more powerful than HFE (and probably even than Pro), and found that it works better and to me is more intuitive than HitFilm so I've stuck with Resolve since then. I'd recommend you check Davinci Resolve out, because it's one of the best options out there for video editing, not to mention you get 95+% of the features in the free version.

 

[FlyingFilmmaker]

You can get more info on color grading and using Resolve by signing up for my email list. flyingfilmmakerpro.com/

 

[McGanksta]

Basically converting to LOG then back again is useless, and probably makes things worse. The only advantage of LOG is that it can take the RAW data from the sensor, and compress more of it into the small h.264 codec of the sensor instead of throwing it away in the process of adding contrast. If you're not generating the LOG straight from the sensor data, it can only make things worse.

As far as matching shots, taking it into LOG before grading won't do much for you. The basic tools you'll want to use for matching shots are white balance, exposure, contrast, and saturation. Of course you can do even more with advanced tools like HSL curves and vectorscopes, but the basic tools will do a lot.

I noticed you're using HitFilm Express, which is what I started out using. It DOES work, but it's actually not that great for editing and color grading, as it's more focused on VFX. I switched to the free version on Davinci Resolve, which is WAY more powerful than HFE (and probably even than Pro), and found that it works better and to me is more intuitive than HitFilm so I've stuck with Resolve since then. I'd recommend you check Davinci Resolve out, because it's one of the best options out there for video editing, not to mention you get 95+% of the features in the free version.

just installed Resolve, will reedit my first, and only video footage, and see if I can make it better

 

[FlyingFilmmaker]

just installed Resolve, will reedit my first, and only video footage, and see if I can make it better

Great! It's a learning process, but I'm sure you'll do great!