Видео

Thanks, but I’m afraid you are wrong. It doesn’t matter what you do with that parameter, the hue, sat and contrast values are all incorrect afterwards.

@@olliekenchington Have you tried it? I'm just curious why your shot became very warm when you set the value to 5600. Seems obvious from this video that setting it to 6500 would, at a minimum, get a much closer result

@@Adam-fb5nt Yes, I’ve looked in to this before, when others have raised the same point. Think about it logically, and you’ll realise it’s a red herring. First, if that parameter was meant to be set to the output colour space white point (which is where this conjecture originally stemmed from), then why make it a hot scrub value field, and not a drop down menu with the common options, e.g. D55, D65 etc? Second, the whole purpose of this feature is to bring a shot from its captured format to a display/output standard e.g. Rec.709, so why would I need to tell it where I was going (which for most people is going to be 6500K) but not where I’m coming from (which it can’t measure, as the colour chart side doesn’t include a white balance section)? Thirdly, let’s pretend you are correct and it should always be left at 6500K - why even give us any option to change at all? Lastly, even if we accept that it shouldn’t be changed from 6500K, it is still only a white balance adjustment, so wouldn’t make any difference to the contrast, yet you can clearly see the contrast is completely wrong too. Please feel free to test it yourself, then check the chromaticity coordinates on a vectorscope and the contrast on a WFM - you will see they don’t align with the values they are meant to, easily disproving this theory.

@@olliekenchington good points. I guess I'm just scratching my head as to why Davinci shanked this one so badly. Thanks

@@cocoytv1 No, I recently deleted them to free up space on my DropBox. Sorry.

@@bigdogfilms6836 Hi, thanks for your great question. First off, the saturated colour chips on the ColorChecker Video do NOT reach the 75% saturated targets on a standard vectorscope. It would be fantastic if they did, but they had to balance the benefits of a more highly saturated printed patch, versus the negatives of having a more glossy (and therefore more reflective) chip. If you look at Calibrite’s product pages for this chart, you will see how they very carefully do not stipulate how saturated (or unsaturated) the colour chips are. Secondly, the reason I arbitrarily increase the saturation before adjusting the hue angle, is because it pushes the ends of the traces closer to the targets (which is also why I use a 2X scale on the vectorscope). This makes it much easier to see when the hue angle and saturation are set correctly, before making a final overall saturation adjustment based on your best guess. I say best guess because, as already mentioned, there is no information available that tells us how saturated those colour chips are. Placing them at 75% will create a very over-saturated image, because they aren’t 75% saturated patches. I’ve found, as a rough starting point, placing them in the targets when the scope is set to 2X looks kind of close to reality, if a touch under saturated. I’d rather that as a base correction to build from, than an image that is too saturated, if I was being handed a project with these base adjustments already in place. If I’m the one starting and finishing the grade, then I know to just pump it up a bit at this stage. If you’re a perfectionist, like me, then finding out that this saturation step is not definitive probably irks you massively (it does me!) however, hue angle is MUCH more important to get 100% correct than overall saturation level. Each angle is saturated correctly, relative to each other, don’t forget. It’s just the overall level of saturation that’s not definitive and left to your judgement. I can’t say what level of saturation this chips are, but they must be somewhere around 40-50%, as a guess, not quite as low as you’ve said above. Interestingly, Datacolor have recently launched their own version of this chart and have opted to use more glossy (and therefore more saturated) colour patches, which they claim are 75%. I did some tests with that chart and the more saturated patches do create a more accurate representation of the scene, compared to the ColorChecker Video, however, they were still a long way off the 75% targets on the vectorscope. Which makes sense, if you think about it, because those 75% targets are for checking against EBU test signals, not reflective printed surfaces on a physical card that’s then recorded. What would be most useful is if Calibrite properly measured and stated the saturation equivalent these patches equate to and published that information, so we knew exactly how much to adjust the values by to match the real environment.

@@bigdogfilms6836 Oh and, no, I’ve not tried colorslice to perform these hue angle/sat steps but no reason it wouldn’t work. I just like the speed that I can do this in the curves with my panel and see no reason to adopt a different tool to do these steps, but I’ll give it a try, since you mention it. 👍🏻

@@olliekenchington Ollie, thank you so much for your reply. Most helpful! Saturation should be subjective for creative purposes. But each vector starting together from the same starting line will help tremendously.

@@scottievee330 Thank you. Yep, all Canon.

I’ve not seen Calibrite refer to that chip as anything other than 18% reflectance. Where did you see them label it as 40 IRE? Most people would place 18% grey around 45 IRE, sometimes a bit higher. I’ve not met many people that would expose it at 40 IRE, but it depends on the sensor and what gamma you’re using. For example, the Arri 35 gives the best image if you expose middle grey much lower than other cameras. As a general rule of thumb, though, I’d advise sticking to 45ish.

@@olliekenchington On the Calibrite product page for the ColorChecker video they stated "Gray Levels: Four larger steps for even gray balance, including white, 40IRE gray, deep gray, and high gloss black reference patches". So that's why I figured under a standard rec709 profile that the middle gray swatch should expose to 40ire but I've been reading so many varying opinions online. Thanks!

My pleasure!

@@GPZ611 you’re welcome 👍🏻

@@garethjones1 you’re welcome ☺️

@@scottievee330 I’ll hopefully get some time with it next month, but stars haven’t quite aligned so far. Thanks. ☺️

Thanks Kevin 🙏🏻

@@olliekenchington your more than welcome 🙏

This can’t be right. I’ll look in to it, but why give us the option, if it’s always going to be set to 6500K? At the very least, you’d expect a drop down menu to choose from a couple of other less common white points, like D55. Why give us an adjustable slider, if this was truly what this parameter is intended for? Can anyone link to the article/video where this was mentioned, so I can check it out?

@@olliekenchington check the white point of delivery formats and apply them correctly. For instance, you can compar Rec709 d65 and cinema DCI d60. When you photoprinting you use d50. Etc.

Hi Scott, thanks for your kind words about my tutorial. As for your note about this other colourist’s comments, that’s very interesting! It doesn’t really stack up to logic, however, as the white point for broadcast is D65 (6500k) in most countries, and D55 (5500k) in a handful of others. If that parameter was indeed meant to be set to your output colour space’s target white point, surely it would be a pop-up menu with D55, D61, D63 and D65 as options, not a sliding scale where you can input any value you want. My understanding is that, in order for the algorithm to know if your charts primaries and secondaries are in the right place, it must know where white is meant to be first. So this value should be set to the white balance value your camera was set to. This is the same as when I manually do it, where I use the white balance side of the chart first, to determine the starting point for all my subsequent hue and sat adjustments to the primary and secondary reference chips. If you do all the hue and sat adjustments without setting the white balance up first, the results are warped and clearly wrong, not dissimilar to how the Color Match looks, in fact! I’ve always suspected that this parameter is the cause of this feature not working correctly, for this reason. Any way, this is all just conjecture, but I like to think I’m right 😝

Thanks ☺️. They do make an XL version, which is good for drones, but pretty expensive (and doesn’t have a WB side).

I haven’t tried it recently, no. Would love to think they’ve fixed it, but I’ve not seen any release notes suggesting it has been fixed. I’ve got to download the v19 beta soon, so I’ll give the Color Match another go then 👍🏻

@@olliekenchington Awesome! And again, your tutorial was a pleasant and rewarding experience.

Final Cut Pro’s Vectorscope doesn’t give you the option to zoom to 2x, so I’d suggest setting the zoom to 1.3x (its maximum), boosting the saturation in an initial colour wheels adjustment, then do your hue vs hue and hue vs sat adjustments after that. Place the primary and secondary colour patches in the boxes (the image will look very over saturated for now), then finally knock the overall saturation back down in that initial colour wheels adjustment, until you feel the image looks good. Less accurate than doing it in Resolve, but the main thing is the hue angles will be accurate and the relative strength of saturation in each hue will be correct too. I do a lot of grading in FCP X and this approach works well enough. 👍🏻

@@olliekenchington thanks for the tips, I've just applied today and perhaps I was not as good as you, need more training! I have a dark-brown complexion. First, I used your white balance colour technique. Followed by the hue vs hue and hue vs sat, then normalise the saturation downward. I noticed that my skin tone turned to "reddish". Then using mask and hue vs hue to correct on the skin tone line, the yellowish/greenish affected the entire scene. What is the right technique to alter just my skin tone?

@@halimrahman I’ve noticed FCP X tends to boost red saturation more than it should, which may explain why your skin looked too red. In terms of adjusting just the skin tone, you can use the hue vs hue curve or create a colour mask and adjust with the colour wheel.

Thanks Peter! 😊

Not even a histogram? How about an hdmi port, so you can use the scopes on an external monitor?

@@olliekenchington yeah there is a hystogram. )

but how it works with the hystogram

@@voederbietels It’s much harder with only a histogram, but if the chart is filling most of the frame, you should be able to see the 90% spike on the graph.

I didn’t in this demo, so as not to confuse beginners too much. But you absolutely can apply a CST or use Resolve’s colour managed workflow, then tweak on top.

ok.. thank you for responsive answer.. .please, usually I use PRORESS from Ninja recording canon gamut clog3. and use last node to transforme .. but when record in HDMI RAW , canon r5c using NINJA V+ can't use this file on Davinci.. some tip to transform it? thank you my friend @korrofilms

@@olliekenchington when im using the clog 3 I just do what you did on this video.. and "bum" feel like perfect to start creative color.... don't need to use the node with cat... some problem with that?

No problem to do it that way.

You’ll have to use FCP X to transcode the Pro Res raw.

Hi there, and thanks for your kind words about the tutorial. In your example, where you are shooting “off temperature” I probably wouldn’t bother using the chart at all, especially if I was shooting with a camera who’s colour matrix I was familiar with. I would just pay close attention to any skin tones on the vectorscope when grading. However, if you were using a camera that was new to you, or you were worried about a particular piece of set/wardrobe/product you had in shot appearing faithful, then you could temporarily make all lights match your camera’s white point (4500K in your example), white balance and shoot the charts, then put your lights back again. This way, you can ensure everything is neutral and accurate, before the lights change. The only variable you’re then left with is how accurately the lights follow the Planckian locus, as they move to 3200K and 6500K. If they drift off, you may have some unwanted tint present in the associated areas of the frame. But, then, this is where good lights are important, regardless of scenario! Kino, Arri, Litepanels - they all perform well when it comes to accurate whites and predictable Kelvin adjustments that follow the Planckian locus. One last tip, based on your scenario… if there was a specific product or item in the shot you wanted 100% faithful, you could use small mirrors to bounce a 4500K pool of light on to it, which would help it stay untinted and accurate, where other areas are pushed warm/cool. 👍🏻

@@olliekenchington What you said about shooting in a neutral color first and then shooting again with different light colors makes a lot of sense to me. Atleast I would know where I stand with the actual colors, and build from there. Rightnow I cant afford the expensive lights, but I would just hope the ones I have are not lying about their CRI ratings. As I am new to cinematography, I’m still getting used to the colors of my camera and figuring out the accurate colors in resolve later had been a major bottleneck. I’ve never ordered a product faster after watching a video than I did yesterday after watching your video. I watch a lot videos in youtube where the relevant information of a 10 minutes video can be summed up in a minute. A spend about a couple of hours yesterday making notes from this video. Thank you again!

You’re very welcome 😊