Picture Style vs Post at DVinfo.net

Arne Johnson · January 6th, 2011, 04:28 PM

Just wondering if people have monkeyed around with building a picture style for their shoots rather than making a look in post. Does it save you the inevitable degrade that comes from heavily processing footage in post? For instance, if you built a bleach bypass look in picture styles and shot with that, aside from time in post and being able to see the look as you shot, would there be a great advantage to shooting that way as far as quality and all that is concerned? Very curious about the power of this tool...

Jackson Hager · January 6th, 2011, 04:40 PM

The picture styles editor a terrible piece of software. I can't imagine using it to set up styles on a per-shot basis. It seriously just sucks.

I like the general advice of always shooting a little flatter, longer and wider than you think you need. Because while you could set up a perfectly cropped, perfectly exposed, and perfect length shot and nail it, you have no room to maneuver if anything goes wrong. Imagine the horror of shooting everything with a "bleach bypass" look, and then realizing (or having a producer or editor or client realize) that it would really work better just "normal"!

John Wiley · January 6th, 2011, 06:17 PM

Lots of people use the picture styles, though perhaps not in the way you describe.

Using the picture styles should be more about retaining as much information as possible. Less contrast means more detail can be retained in the blacks and highlights, less sharpening means less artifacting, etc, etc. Basically it's about not adding any image maniplations in camera which could otherwise be added in post. That way you have more options later on.

John Owen · January 7th, 2011, 11:10 AM

Co-sign with J. Wiley, this is something that many people need to learn time and again - because it's tempting to shoot with a pleasing image, rather than shooting flat with post in mind.

Degrading due to image processing is a consideration, but for me it's only proved probelmatic with quite extreme colour or exposure alterations in post.

Arne Johnson · January 7th, 2011, 03:37 PM

Thanks guys...

Yeah, we generally shoot for flat and range and all that, but had just been reading another thread where folks were warning about the dangers of degrading footage from this camera in post, that it doesn't necessarily hold up super well, so I thought this might be a possible solution if we absolutely knew with certainty that we wanted a certain look. I understand the desire to shoot with options, but obviously some clients and/or directors are pretty clear from the beginning and don't deviate.

If the software is horrible and you can't get what you want, that, of course, makes the discussion moot I suppose. But it IS tempting on occasion for a certain shot or sequence to pre-plan if it meant a notable change in final quality.

Scott Shama · January 9th, 2011, 01:21 AM

The image holds up fine when transcoded to prores LT in Final Cut.

January 6th, 2011, 04:28 PM	#1
Arne Johnson Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: United States Posts: 88	Picture Style vs Post Just wondering if people have monkeyed around with building a picture style for their shoots rather than making a look in post. Does it save you the inevitable degrade that comes from heavily processing footage in post? For instance, if you built a bleach bypass look in picture styles and shot with that, aside from time in post and being able to see the look as you shot, would there be a great advantage to shooting that way as far as quality and all that is concerned? Very curious about the power of this tool...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

January 6th, 2011, 04:40 PM	#2
Jackson Hager Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Eugene, OR Posts: 32	The picture styles editor a terrible piece of software. I can't imagine using it to set up styles on a per-shot basis. It seriously just sucks. I like the general advice of always shooting a little flatter, longer and wider than you think you need. Because while you could set up a perfectly cropped, perfectly exposed, and perfect length shot and nail it, you have no room to maneuver if anything goes wrong. Imagine the horror of shooting everything with a "bleach bypass" look, and then realizing (or having a producer or editor or client realize) that it would really work better just "normal"!

January 6th, 2011, 06:17 PM	#3
John Wiley Trustee Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Byron Bay, Australia Posts: 1,155	Lots of people use the picture styles, though perhaps not in the way you describe. Using the picture styles should be more about retaining as much information as possible. Less contrast means more detail can be retained in the blacks and highlights, less sharpening means less artifacting, etc, etc. Basically it's about not adding any image maniplations in camera which could otherwise be added in post. That way you have more options later on.

January 7th, 2011, 11:10 AM	#4
John Owen Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: London, UK Posts: 52	Co-sign with J. Wiley, this is something that many people need to learn time and again - because it's tempting to shoot with a pleasing image, rather than shooting flat with post in mind. Degrading due to image processing is a consideration, but for me it's only proved probelmatic with quite extreme colour or exposure alterations in post.

January 7th, 2011, 03:37 PM	#5
Arne Johnson Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: United States Posts: 88	Thanks guys... Yeah, we generally shoot for flat and range and all that, but had just been reading another thread where folks were warning about the dangers of degrading footage from this camera in post, that it doesn't necessarily hold up super well, so I thought this might be a possible solution if we absolutely knew with certainty that we wanted a certain look. I understand the desire to shoot with options, but obviously some clients and/or directors are pretty clear from the beginning and don't deviate. If the software is horrible and you can't get what you want, that, of course, makes the discussion moot I suppose. But it IS tempting on occasion for a certain shot or sequence to pre-plan if it meant a notable change in final quality.

January 9th, 2011, 01:21 AM	#6
Scott Shama Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Beaverton, Oregon Posts: 399	The image holds up fine when transcoded to prores LT in Final Cut.