Question about matching shots in color grading.

[harmonica44]

Some of my shots are a bit more or less exposed than others. Such as wanting to change the aperture to a shallow DOF when switching from a master shot, to a close up. I tried resetting the ISO as best I could to get the same exposure to the new aperture setting, to match the previous shot.

However, not every shot matches in a scene, exposure wise. But how do I grade them too exactly? If I turn down the brightness, actors' hair becomes darker, even if the exposure now matches. Certain things like that become darker. If I turn down the contrast to get the hair brightness back, the image then becomes just as bright as before, and does not match. It seems I cannot get the image darker, without it bringing the darker parts too black, such as hair or clothes.

Any thoughts on how to bring down the brightness without it effecting the contrast? Thanks.

 

[WhiteOpus]

How do you make it so the ISO can compensate accurately to match instead of having to pick the closest leap, which is still not spot on accurate to match?

Use a variable ND filter. You can change your aperture (essentially only changing the DOF if you use your ND filter correctly) without introducing different levels of noise between shots.

 

[WhiteOpus]

- they don't flood a forum to find a solution for the mistakes

although answering his questions does sometimes help me practice how I personally would react to those problems in my own shooting, which is helpful. A nice hypothetical question jogs the memory and keeps me feeling informed, efficient and reliable.

 

[jackeverittdp]

I think that if you've not used Da Vinci Resolve previously and are on a tight deadline then it would be an uphill struggle to start now. Working with your basic levels, curves and gamma tools you should be able to get fairly decent results. The three-way colour correcter tool in PP should put you in the right direction. I'd advice bringing up a reference monitor and using scopes to match your general exposure. You can then dial in your input/output for more accurately matching black/white points. When it comes to matching your colour then it doesn't hurt to put a garbage matte over selected areas (skin tones for example), and using the scopes to give you reliable readings. If all else fails I believe there's a video on YouTube somewhere which shows a new feature on Adobe SpeedGrade which allows you to match shots at the click of a button. A bit of a gimmick perhaps, as I've not used it, but probably worth a look.

 

[Sweetie]

So if cast and crew keep asking when is it going to be done

What is your job on this project? Are you the editor? Producer? Director? Colorist? Sound Mixer?

The suggestions will differ depending on what your answer is.

 

[beamazed]

If you're using Premiere Pro, isn't Speedgrade available to use? Sure, it isn't exactly as great as say DaVinci, but you can definitely follow everyone's advice on here without having to export, re-export, etc in order to get it into DaVinci. It works like a charm with the direct link compatibility and isn't too hard on your system either.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. Speedgrade did not come with my Adobe package, but I can see about getting it. My job was director and editor, but would like to do the best to get it done, since we all put our money into it.

As far as using the three way color corrector goes, it only seems to change the actual colors. Where as I have problems with needing to change the levels of exposure from shot to shot. Does it help with that too, and I am missing it?

As far as using an ND filter for next time, it's not the noise that is the issue really, but I did think of that for next time too! The problem is is that I cannot get the ISO at the same exposure when I switch aperture.

 

[beamazed]

I have yet to test it out personally, but from the looks of this video: http://tinyurl.com/omg3324 It seems like you can seem to do it (match shots/change exposure) fairly efficiently. I'm unaware of how/if DaVinci does it, so some research for that program is necessary. If there is, and I'm sure there is, it'd probably be apart of the non-lite, non-free version.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. That looks impressive. However in the first example when they tried to match exposure, you can still see a difference. The gamma in one is still different, and you can see more details in the actors' face, compared to the other.

The second and third examples in the video match better though. What was the problem as to why the videos didn't match? The guy said it was shot with the same camera so why would one look more saturated than the other, assuming that the saturation in the camera wasn't changed.

For my next project, if I shot a whole scene with the camera on the same settings, without changing any, do you think it would all look the same in post, or would their still be differences?

 

[Sweetie]

My job was director and editor

Did you discuss with the producer on who would be doing the color grade? What was the budget to do the grade? Has the producer/production manager also been looking for your post production team?

As far as using the three way color corrector goes, it only seems to change the actual colors. Where as I have problems with needing to change the levels of exposure from shot to shot. Does it help with that too, and I am missing it?

I just took a quick look at the 3 way color corrector and Luma Corrector in PP CC. Yep, you're missing something. At a quick glance, most of what you need to do a grade/correct is there. What's most likely to be the issue is you don't know what you're doing or what tools should be used for the task at hand. You're probably missing a step in the correction process and trying to skip straight through to the grade, on top of that, I suspect you don't even know what you need to do to fix the problem, or not even aware of what the actual problems are that need to be fixed.

When you learn the ins and outs of a topic like color grading (special effects, sound design, editing and so on), a lot of other parts of filmmaking become a lot clearer. It'll also help you learn how best to shoot, what you know is easy to fix in post (and not worth spending a lot of time during production to fix) and what will take a lot of time in post and are best to fix during production. It'll also open up your world to the possibilities to what you can do with even simple shots if done with a particular scope in mind.

Take the time and learn the process or find someone to do the job. I've personally done a hack job of color grading when I tried to do it knowing less than I should have. It hurts more than it helps.

if I shot a whole scene with the camera on the same settings, without changing any, do you think it would all look the same in post, or would their still be differences?

There are likely to be variances (some may be large, some may be barely notable) between different angles which may still need to be corrected.

 

[Sweetie]

If there is, and I'm sure there is, it'd probably be apart of the non-lite, non-free version.

Lite version of Resolve is pretty amazing. Anything about 1080p resolution isn't available, 3D isn't available and noise reduction/stabilization is not available and multiple GPU processing is disabled. Virtually everything else is available.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. Actually I have been using the Luma curve, for the last couple of days now. I managed to make all the shots virtually the same, accept for one, the master, which is just budging, in the shadows, or the amount of brightness. All the rest though, you cannot tell the difference unless you actually put them side by side, but as long as you cut to another actor, before cutting back, it looks the same, accept for the master, which is too noticeably different.

 

[Sweetie]

This is a solution, though far from the best solution. You're locking yourself into edit decisions that may not be best for your film.

If it's a workable solution for you, then congratulations are in order. Your film is now complete.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks, but there still is a problem with the master. I need it for the last portion of the scene, as it has the best acting, and the acting in the close ups of one of the actors, really sucks actually. The master is a lot better, but I cannot match it no matter what I do.

One of the problems is, is that we had to only shoot part of the scene, one weekend, and the the other part, the next weekend. We just were not able to match the lighting exactly. Is it possible to change the lighting in color grading like perhaps darken parts of the face, and brighten others? I have to decide if it's do-able or if not, then decide whether it's better to sacrifice lighting continuity for performance.

 

[Sweetie]

Yep it's doable.

In Resolve, what you're explaining is a rather simple task. Add a node, create a window, track the object, make the adjustments you need.

If you didn't apply the overall adjustment you wanted to the first node, you'd then add an outside node and make the rest of the adjustments you need. Most of the time it would take maybe a minute (give or take) in Resolve to achieve.

In PP, especially if there is movement in the scene, you're going outside my area of knowledge. As far as I know, PP doesn't have a tracker. You'll need to apply a window (I'm fairly sure it's a mask in PP), use that window to let you apply the changes to only the part of the image you've selected. Then you need to apply the changes you need to outside the window. If you need multiple adjustments, you'll need to work out how to make more masks stack. If there is no tracker in PP, you'll probably need to manually adjust and keyframe those adjustments.

It's possible though you'll need to work out how to do it.

It's an example of using the right tools for the right task. You can still use the wrong tools but it'll often take a bucket load of more time to do the same task. Imagine the time it'd take to do semi-complicated animating inside PP instead of inside AE.

 

[sfoster]

It's extremely disappointing that my macbook won't run resolve. I've tried other programs and it's not the same.

 

[Sweetie]

It's extremely disappointing that my macbook won't run resolve

Video card issue? It won't run on my wife's computer either. Her video card is incompatible/not powerful enough/lack of cuda etc....

 

[sfoster]

Video card issue? It won't run on my wife's computer either. Her video card is incompatible/not powerful enough/lack of cuda etc....

yes

 

[harmonica44]

Yep it's doable.

In Resolve, what you're explaining is a rather simple task. Add a node, create a window, track the object, make the adjustments you need.

If you didn't apply the overall adjustment you wanted to the first node, you'd then add an outside node and make the rest of the adjustments you need. Most of the time it would take maybe a minute (give or take) in Resolve to achieve.

In PP, especially if there is movement in the scene, you're going outside my area of knowledge. As far as I know, PP doesn't have a tracker. You'll need to apply a window (I'm fairly sure it's a mask in PP), use that window to let you apply the changes to only the part of the image you've selected. Then you need to apply the changes you need to outside the window. If you need multiple adjustments, you'll need to work out how to make more masks stack. If there is no tracker in PP, you'll probably need to manually adjust and keyframe those adjustments.

It's possible though you'll need to work out how to do it.

It's an example of using the right tools for the right task. You can still use the wrong tools but it'll often take a bucket load of more time to do the same task. Imagine the time it'd take to do semi-complicated animating inside PP instead of inside AE.

Okay thanks. Is their anyone I could hire to do this though too, who is more experienced? No one has applied to my colorist job postings, accept for people who are wanting other jobs on the movie besides that. But perhaps craigslist and kijiji are not the best places to advertise and I should try other sites.