Color Enhancement/look improvment at DVinfo.net

Kevin Maistros · May 29th, 2003, 01:09 PM

Messing around with a "film look" process and color correction/enhancement.
Taken from a video short in progress about a girl in a high school marching band, and her antics with her friends at an Aumsment Park (Cedar Point)

http://escape.kmdstudios.com/visuals/caseyorig.jpg
Original footage from XL-1s
http://escape.kmdstudios.com/visuals/casey2.jpg
Output frame still from post work

I think I'm getting a bit familiarized with an experimental process of mine.. getting it to look more film/professional. At least I hope it's doing well getting there, haha.

Charles King · May 29th, 2003, 03:56 PM

Nice work Kevin. Although Alex is right. You should lighten up on the colors a bit. Maybe it's the style you're you want, but it looks great any way. What editing program are you using by the way?

Val Rodriguez · May 29th, 2003, 07:03 PM

Kevin,
not bad. The color correction along with the shallow DOF gives it a film like appearence.

Kevin Maistros · May 29th, 2003, 08:48 PM

I like to use After Effects for corrections and coloring because it's like a motion photoshop. The way I do it is just the same as you would do it in photoshop, treating the clips as the image layers. Duplicating the footage and using layer transfer modes to enhance. Sometimes slight gausian blurs in the middle layers to soften it up a touch.

Charles, and yeah that was the style I was going for.. I've always been a fan of warm color in movies, and althought it does look dark on monitor, in a dark room on a tv it looked perfect to me.

Thanks. :)

Val Rodriguez · May 29th, 2003, 08:49 PM

Another important thing to keep in mind is that not all monitors are calibrated exactly the same. So the feedback you get on the work you show others may not necessarily be based on an accurate representation of what you created.

Kevin Maistros · May 29th, 2003, 10:56 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Val Rodriguez : Another important thing to keep in mind is that not all monitors are calibrated exactly the same. So the feedback you get on the work you show others may not necessarily be based on an accurate representation of what you created. -->>>

Correct, that's why I brought up the point that despite it's look on the monitor.. on the TV it looked great.

Charles King · May 29th, 2003, 11:50 PM

... Kevin, it looks super. Nice :) By the Kevin, I more use to Premiere and then that the same sffect can also be achieve with Premiere, don't you think so? I think after effects is a little too complicated. Maybe it's just me.

Brad Simmons · May 30th, 2003, 12:07 AM

nice look. I like how wide it is, as well as the depth of field. Did you get that shallow depth of field when you shot it or did you blur out the background and foreground in post? If you got it during the shoot, can you explain what the settings were on your camera?

Kevin Maistros · May 30th, 2003, 01:14 AM

Charles,

Using premiere I've just been aware of level and color balance adjustments. I wasn't able to use softlight or overlay layers like I could in After Effects. What I did was adjusted the levels to the base footage. Then duplicated the layer, and set the layer transfer mode to overlay. Adjusted the opacity a bit and then it was set.

After Effects layers:

-base footage 1 copy (set to overlay layer transfer mode, already corrected levels from copying base footage 1)
-base footage 1 (set to normal, corrected levels)

That was the right process for that style.. for that particular scene The way you need to work the layers varies from shot to shot because so does the lighting or subject.

For instance, there may be a time where you need to have 3 layers, or even 4..

Layer 1 copy2 (set mode to softlight or overlay)
Layer 1 copy - (set mode to screen)
Layer 1 - (set to normal)

Or to soften them you can apply soft blurs to the overlay and screen layers for an interesting effect... but don't blur the base layer.

After Effects isn't hard once you learn the gui really, and get a bit familiar with it's features.

Brad,

I got the DOF from the camera, not post. Manual mode, Century Optics .3x and zoomed it in.. manual focus set on the subject. I also put the gain up just a bit so that in post it gives it a hint of grain like in the film look. I usually like to shoot with it a bit overexposed.. not much though, just like 2 nothces up from the center of the balance meter in Manual mode.

I've been able to get good DOF results by moving back farther and zooming in with just the 16x base. Although usually works best when you have a widened field of view. I think I'll take the time right now actually to do a shoot right here.. and give image examples of the differences in DOF using the XL-1s with the 16x and then with the .3x and then let ya guys compare.

Brad Simmons · May 30th, 2003, 01:36 AM

sounds good. I'd like to see the image examples. I've been debating on whether or not I should get that adapter. I plan on shooting a short in 16:9 with the manual lens on the XL1-S.

Charles King · May 30th, 2003, 01:42 AM

Thanks Kevin. I'l try and play around with after effects to get the hand of things. Would still prefer to do some in premiere though. Ah well.

Kevin Maistros · May 30th, 2003, 01:54 AM

In Premiere my advice would be to use the levels, and color ballance. I usually pull mine into the center a bit.. like the left in a bit to the right.. and the right in a bit to the left.. and the center a bit more towards the right. I'll take some screen shots in a sec and do the process to these shots I just took for that DOF example.

Charles King · May 30th, 2003, 01:56 AM

Thanks Kevin

Kevin Maistros · May 30th, 2003, 03:43 AM

For these 4 images, each one I did the process a bit different.

http://www.entityinspiration.com/kmd/4.jpg

The first one was with the .3x, really close to the front object, without zooming out. Focus is on closest object, which is a chinese candle lamp. Next is a bottle, then one of my notebooks, and phone in the back.

If I were to switch focus to the bottle, all would be blurred but it. The chinese lamp would be slightly blurred as opposed to the rest of which would have more blurring.

The objects were each about or less than a foot apart.

http://www.entityinspiration.com/kmd/3.jpg
http://www.entityinspiration.com/kmd/2.jpg
Secondly, 2 and 3 are another shot of my phone and lamp. The lamp is exactly one foot from the phone. I pulled focus from the phone to the lamp so you can see the difference. This was with just the 16x, moved back far and zoomed all the way in. With this method I don't seem to have as much foreground/background DOF control.. meaning it's hard to focus in the middle and blur out fore and back.

http://www.entityinspiration.com/kmd/1.jpg
Finally, (my fav of the 4) - This was with the .3, zoomed in as far as it would go before focus point is lost. Manual focus also gives ya bit closer at the right spot. Anyway, this is what I found has most control over DOF (In my experience). Zooming in with a wideangle attachment.

Charles King · May 30th, 2003, 03:58 AM

Thanks for your efforts Kevin. You are right the last one is a favorite. But your widwscreen color corrected clip is the bomb. Now it's back to the drawing board to do some of my own test. Great inspiration material.

May 29th, 2003, 01:09 PM	#1
Kevin Maistros Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Cleveland, OH Posts: 129	Color Enhancement/look improvment Messing around with a "film look" process and color correction/enhancement. Taken from a video short in progress about a girl in a high school marching band, and her antics with her friends at an Aumsment Park (Cedar Point) http://escape.kmdstudios.com/visuals/caseyorig.jpg Original footage from XL-1s http://escape.kmdstudios.com/visuals/casey2.jpg Output frame still from post work I think I'm getting a bit familiarized with an experimental process of mine.. getting it to look more film/professional. At least I hope it's doing well getting there, haha.

May 29th, 2003, 03:56 PM	#2
Charles King Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: sweden Posts: 795	Nice work Kevin. Although Alex is right. You should lighten up on the colors a bit. Maybe it's the style you're you want, but it looks great any way. What editing program are you using by the way? __________________ Charles 'What we perceive to be may not be what we believe to be.'

May 29th, 2003, 07:03 PM	#3
Val Rodriguez Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Mission Viejo, CA Posts: 35	Kevin, not bad. The color correction along with the shallow DOF gives it a film like appearence. __________________ Val Rod

May 29th, 2003, 08:49 PM	#5
Val Rodriguez Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Mission Viejo, CA Posts: 35	Another important thing to keep in mind is that not all monitors are calibrated exactly the same. So the feedback you get on the work you show others may not necessarily be based on an accurate representation of what you created. __________________ Val Rod

May 29th, 2003, 11:50 PM	#7
Charles King Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: sweden Posts: 795	... Kevin, it looks super. Nice :) By the Kevin, I more use to Premiere and then that the same sffect can also be achieve with Premiere, don't you think so? I think after effects is a little too complicated. Maybe it's just me. __________________ Charles 'What we perceive to be may not be what we believe to be.'

May 29th, 2003, 08:48 PM	#4
Kevin Maistros Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Cleveland, OH Posts: 129	I like to use After Effects for corrections and coloring because it's like a motion photoshop. The way I do it is just the same as you would do it in photoshop, treating the clips as the image layers. Duplicating the footage and using layer transfer modes to enhance. Sometimes slight gausian blurs in the middle layers to soften it up a touch. Charles, and yeah that was the style I was going for.. I've always been a fan of warm color in movies, and althought it does look dark on monitor, in a dark room on a tv it looked perfect to me. Thanks. :)

May 29th, 2003, 10:56 PM	#6
Kevin Maistros Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Cleveland, OH Posts: 129	<<<-- Originally posted by Val Rodriguez : Another important thing to keep in mind is that not all monitors are calibrated exactly the same. So the feedback you get on the work you show others may not necessarily be based on an accurate representation of what you created. -->>> Correct, that's why I brought up the point that despite it's look on the monitor.. on the TV it looked great.

May 30th, 2003, 12:07 AM	#8
Brad Simmons Major Player Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Washington DC Posts: 304	nice look. I like how wide it is, as well as the depth of field. Did you get that shallow depth of field when you shot it or did you blur out the background and foreground in post? If you got it during the shoot, can you explain what the settings were on your camera?

May 30th, 2003, 01:14 AM	#9
Kevin Maistros Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Cleveland, OH Posts: 129	Charles, Using premiere I've just been aware of level and color balance adjustments. I wasn't able to use softlight or overlay layers like I could in After Effects. What I did was adjusted the levels to the base footage. Then duplicated the layer, and set the layer transfer mode to overlay. Adjusted the opacity a bit and then it was set. After Effects layers: -base footage 1 copy (set to overlay layer transfer mode, already corrected levels from copying base footage 1) -base footage 1 (set to normal, corrected levels) That was the right process for that style.. for that particular scene The way you need to work the layers varies from shot to shot because so does the lighting or subject. For instance, there may be a time where you need to have 3 layers, or even 4.. Layer 1 copy2 (set mode to softlight or overlay) Layer 1 copy - (set mode to screen) Layer 1 - (set to normal) Or to soften them you can apply soft blurs to the overlay and screen layers for an interesting effect... but don't blur the base layer. After Effects isn't hard once you learn the gui really, and get a bit familiar with it's features. Brad, I got the DOF from the camera, not post. Manual mode, Century Optics .3x and zoomed it in.. manual focus set on the subject. I also put the gain up just a bit so that in post it gives it a hint of grain like in the film look. I usually like to shoot with it a bit overexposed.. not much though, just like 2 nothces up from the center of the balance meter in Manual mode. I've been able to get good DOF results by moving back farther and zooming in with just the 16x base. Although usually works best when you have a widened field of view. I think I'll take the time right now actually to do a shoot right here.. and give image examples of the differences in DOF using the XL-1s with the 16x and then with the .3x and then let ya guys compare.

May 30th, 2003, 01:36 AM	#10
Brad Simmons Major Player Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Washington DC Posts: 304	sounds good. I'd like to see the image examples. I've been debating on whether or not I should get that adapter. I plan on shooting a short in 16:9 with the manual lens on the XL1-S.

May 30th, 2003, 01:42 AM	#11
Charles King Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: sweden Posts: 795	Thanks Kevin. I'l try and play around with after effects to get the hand of things. Would still prefer to do some in premiere though. Ah well. __________________ Charles 'What we perceive to be may not be what we believe to be.'

May 30th, 2003, 01:54 AM	#12
Kevin Maistros Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Cleveland, OH Posts: 129	In Premiere my advice would be to use the levels, and color ballance. I usually pull mine into the center a bit.. like the left in a bit to the right.. and the right in a bit to the left.. and the center a bit more towards the right. I'll take some screen shots in a sec and do the process to these shots I just took for that DOF example.

May 30th, 2003, 01:56 AM	#13
Charles King Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: sweden Posts: 795	Thanks Kevin __________________ Charles 'What we perceive to be may not be what we believe to be.'

May 30th, 2003, 03:43 AM	#14
Kevin Maistros Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Cleveland, OH Posts: 129	For these 4 images, each one I did the process a bit different. http://www.entityinspiration.com/kmd/4.jpg The first one was with the .3x, really close to the front object, without zooming out. Focus is on closest object, which is a chinese candle lamp. Next is a bottle, then one of my notebooks, and phone in the back. If I were to switch focus to the bottle, all would be blurred but it. The chinese lamp would be slightly blurred as opposed to the rest of which would have more blurring. The objects were each about or less than a foot apart. http://www.entityinspiration.com/kmd/3.jpg http://www.entityinspiration.com/kmd/2.jpg Secondly, 2 and 3 are another shot of my phone and lamp. The lamp is exactly one foot from the phone. I pulled focus from the phone to the lamp so you can see the difference. This was with just the 16x, moved back far and zoomed all the way in. With this method I don't seem to have as much foreground/background DOF control.. meaning it's hard to focus in the middle and blur out fore and back. http://www.entityinspiration.com/kmd/1.jpg Finally, (my fav of the 4) - This was with the .3, zoomed in as far as it would go before focus point is lost. Manual focus also gives ya bit closer at the right spot. Anyway, this is what I found has most control over DOF (In my experience). Zooming in with a wideangle attachment.

May 30th, 2003, 03:58 AM	#15
Charles King Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: sweden Posts: 795	Thanks for your efforts Kevin. You are right the last one is a favorite. But your widwscreen color corrected clip is the bomb. Now it's back to the drawing board to do some of my own test. Great inspiration material. __________________ Charles 'What we perceive to be may not be what we believe to be.'