Macgregor's "Similo" Film Picture Quality at DVinfo.net

Matt Stedeford · July 5th, 2006, 02:01 PM

In SIMILO, the short film by Macgregor, shot with a DVX100, the picture quality, is excellent. See picture 1:
http://www.stedeford.com/dvx100picturequality.html

Yet the natural picture quality in picture 2 doesn't look good. See picture 2:
http://www.stedeford.com/dvx100picturequality.html

These are both shot with the same camera, yet the picture quality is different.

Why/How is this?

Giroud Francois · July 5th, 2006, 03:20 PM

i think picture quality is the same (resolution wise), but the light is so different, that the first one looks better (dark background can hide a lot of problems and is cut to different ratio)
the first one has probably some filter too (enhanced contrast, tuned color) that the second has not.
the 2nd picture look flat because the light is very soft and evenly distributed, there is absolutely no shadow at all.
And the sky in the background "eats" the trees.
I think the 2nd picture has too little DOF.

Matt Stedeford · July 5th, 2006, 03:59 PM

So what your saying is, it's down to CC and DOF?

CC can't change the quality of image edges. You mentioned you thought the darkness was simply hiding the edges in pic 1. However, the image quality remains in the light parts of the movie as well.

I can see that the sky eats into the trees in pic2, and it looks ugly. How was this avoided in the short film similo?

So many questions, so little time! Lol.. I wish macgregor would just post a list of main stuff/settings he used on SIMILO, and explain how to achieve the same quality, because it would basically answer most people's questions in this forum.

I myself have been behind the scenes reading this forum for some time. I absorb info and forget to write it down! I don't know whether to get a DVX100, FX-1, Canon, which equipment, techniques, etc. and if the lo-down on this film were simply posted, it would answer all my questions. :)

Thanks for any help on this.

Giroud Francois · July 6th, 2006, 01:26 AM

in the case of these 2 pictures, the DOF is good for 1rst pic and bad for 2nd.
mountain and road benefits from small DOF, they are uniform color shapes and in this case small DOF helps to reduce them to simple surface, enhancing the subject details.
in the second picture, the background content is complex, as much in color than in details. Small DOF just make is messy.
Would be the subject under better light and the background darker (taken later in the afternoon) , it would be ok, but not here.

Nick Outram · July 6th, 2006, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Stedeford

In SIMILO, the short film by Macgregor, shot with a DVX100, the picture quality, is excellent. See picture 1:
http://www.stedeford.com/dvx100picturequality.html

Yet the natural picture quality in picture 2 doesn't look good. See picture 2:
http://www.stedeford.com/dvx100picturequality.html

These are both shot with the same camera, yet the picture quality is different.

Why/How is this?

...am I missing something -these two links point to the same picture in my browser...

Tim Johnson · July 6th, 2006, 08:58 AM

scroll down nick ;)

i think what makes the second one look worse is the fact that theres alot more detail in the bg, which im suprised nobody pointed out. the background on the first one is just a horizon with nothing on it where as the second one is a house etc.

Jon Fairhurst · July 7th, 2006, 11:01 AM

I have the definitive answer:

The narrow DOF looks bad on the second picture, because the sky was blown out and clipped. End of story.

Here's the deal: narrow DOF acts like a filter in all directions. But it's not done electronically. It's done optically - before the photons get captured by the imager.

Imagine a black paper over a white surface. Put it in the background of a narrow DOF shot. The transition between black and white is blurred symmetrically. The curve would have an "S" shape. It has an equally smooth transition from white to gray as it does from black to gray. If your exposure is set properly, your camera will capture a nice smooth transition with no hard edges.

Now imagine that you start over exposing. It's like you're crushing the "S" curve against the ceiling. The top of the "S" starts to flatten out, looking more like a "Z" at the top. The letter "Z" has a hard edge, and that's the problem in this case.

Take a close look at the second picture. The transition from dark to gray is very nice. The transition to white has a hard quantized edge.

BTW, this is order dependent. Had the photo been taken in focus and over exposed, and then a filter applied, it would look fine. Crushing your "S" curve after it has been applied is the problem.

Solomon Chase · July 7th, 2006, 01:09 PM

It was shot near the end of the day, and the subjects face was lit, so the lighting is very balanced. Add to that the simple background, shadows that add depth, and contrast + color tweaking and you have an amazing shot.

DOF isn't a magic fix all. You have to put thought into balancing lighting, shadows, correct exposure, and good color correction.

Jon Fairhurst · July 7th, 2006, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solomon Chase

...and you have an amazing shot.

That's certainly true of the top photo. It's gorgeous. The second photo would have been equally as beautiful, had the sky not been overexposed. Everything except the transition to the sky is really wonderful - and frankly, most people in the audience wouldn't even notice.

I'm looking at doing some bluescreen work, which allows me to fake shallow DOF. I can keep the foreground in focus, and blur the background synthetically. If the background is blownout, it won't matter so much, since I'll be applying the filter after any clipping. My "S" curve won't clip.

That's not to say that the chromakeyed results will look as great as a well done shot at sunset. I'll still need to get all of the elements right to even attempt to come close.

Solomon Chase · July 12th, 2006, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

That's certainly true of the top photo. It's gorgeous. The second photo would have been equally as beautiful, had the sky not been overexposed. Everything except the transition to the sky is really wonderful - and frankly, most people in the audience wouldn't even notice.

I'm looking at doing some bluescreen work, which allows me to fake shallow DOF. I can keep the foreground in focus, and blur the background synthetically. If the background is blownout, it won't matter so much, since I'll be applying the filter after any clipping. My "S" curve won't clip.

That's not to say that the chromakeyed results will look as great as a well done shot at sunset. I'll still need to get all of the elements right to even attempt to come close.

The bluescreen approach should work (I've seen it done). The only thing you can't do is very shallow DOF. Example: the subjects hair is out of focus but the face is in focus. You also can't do DOF rack focus among other things. If you are shooting interviews or something stationary, it would all work out great though.

And to the original poster: here's an example of how framing, contrast, color, and lighting all play a part in making great footage.

http://solomonchase.com/similo.jpg

Justine Haupt · July 13th, 2006, 10:05 AM

Matt, I agree completely -- I'd love to know more specifics about how this was shot. What prog for color grading? Which mini35 was used? all that stuff.

July 5th, 2006, 02:01 PM	#1
Matt Stedeford Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 41	Macgregor's "Similo" Film Picture Quality In SIMILO, the short film by Macgregor, shot with a DVX100, the picture quality, is excellent. See picture 1: http://www.stedeford.com/dvx100picturequality.html Yet the natural picture quality in picture 2 doesn't look good. See picture 2: http://www.stedeford.com/dvx100picturequality.html These are both shot with the same camera, yet the picture quality is different. Why/How is this?

July 5th, 2006, 03:59 PM	#3
Matt Stedeford Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 41	So what your saying is, it's down to CC and DOF? CC can't change the quality of image edges. You mentioned you thought the darkness was simply hiding the edges in pic 1. However, the image quality remains in the light parts of the movie as well. I can see that the sky eats into the trees in pic2, and it looks ugly. How was this avoided in the short film similo? So many questions, so little time! Lol.. I wish macgregor would just post a list of main stuff/settings he used on SIMILO, and explain how to achieve the same quality, because it would basically answer most people's questions in this forum. I myself have been behind the scenes reading this forum for some time. I absorb info and forget to write it down! I don't know whether to get a DVX100, FX-1, Canon, which equipment, techniques, etc. and if the lo-down on this film were simply posted, it would answer all my questions. :) Thanks for any help on this. Last edited by Matt Stedeford; July 5th, 2006 at 04:42 PM.

July 6th, 2006, 08:58 AM	#6
Tim Johnson Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 101	scroll down nick ;) i think what makes the second one look worse is the fact that theres alot more detail in the bg, which im suprised nobody pointed out. the background on the first one is just a horizon with nothing on it where as the second one is a house etc. __________________ (Wishes to be more informative and helpful than a nuisance)

July 7th, 2006, 11:01 AM	#7
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	I have the definitive answer: The narrow DOF looks bad on the second picture, because the sky was blown out and clipped. End of story. Here's the deal: narrow DOF acts like a filter in all directions. But it's not done electronically. It's done optically - before the photons get captured by the imager. Imagine a black paper over a white surface. Put it in the background of a narrow DOF shot. The transition between black and white is blurred symmetrically. The curve would have an "S" shape. It has an equally smooth transition from white to gray as it does from black to gray. If your exposure is set properly, your camera will capture a nice smooth transition with no hard edges. Now imagine that you start over exposing. It's like you're crushing the "S" curve against the ceiling. The top of the "S" starts to flatten out, looking more like a "Z" at the top. The letter "Z" has a hard edge, and that's the problem in this case. Take a close look at the second picture. The transition from dark to gray is very nice. The transition to white has a hard quantized edge. BTW, this is order dependent. Had the photo been taken in focus and over exposed, and then a filter applied, it would look fine. Crushing your "S" curve after it has been applied is the problem. __________________ Jon Fairhurst

July 13th, 2006, 10:05 AM	#11
Justine Haupt Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 208	Matt, I agree completely -- I'd love to know more specifics about how this was shot. What prog for color grading? Which mini35 was used? all that stuff. __________________ ~Justine "We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams" -Arthur O'Shaunessey (as quoted by Willy Wonka)

July 5th, 2006, 03:20 PM	#2
Giroud Francois Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: switzerland Posts: 2,133	i think picture quality is the same (resolution wise), but the light is so different, that the first one looks better (dark background can hide a lot of problems and is cut to different ratio) the first one has probably some filter too (enhanced contrast, tuned color) that the second has not. the 2nd picture look flat because the light is very soft and evenly distributed, there is absolutely no shadow at all. And the sky in the background "eats" the trees. I think the 2nd picture has too little DOF.

July 6th, 2006, 01:26 AM	#4
Giroud Francois Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: switzerland Posts: 2,133	in the case of these 2 pictures, the DOF is good for 1rst pic and bad for 2nd. mountain and road benefits from small DOF, they are uniform color shapes and in this case small DOF helps to reduce them to simple surface, enhancing the subject details. in the second picture, the background content is complex, as much in color than in details. Small DOF just make is messy. Would be the subject under better light and the background darker (taken later in the afternoon) , it would be ok, but not here.

July 7th, 2006, 01:09 PM	#8
Solomon Chase Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Woodstock, Georgia Posts: 154	It was shot near the end of the day, and the subjects face was lit, so the lighting is very balanced. Add to that the simple background, shadows that add depth, and contrast + color tweaking and you have an amazing shot. DOF isn't a magic fix all. You have to put thought into balancing lighting, shadows, correct exposure, and good color correction.