Color Correcting Question - How much can I push the Mid's and High's?

I'm color correcting a project right now, and there is a whole section inside a house that is fairly dark. And I was shooting on a telephoto lens that was zoomed in to get he subject, so it's at a f5.6, so the footage is pretty dark.

My question is, when I'm adjusting the exposure on the color board while looking at my scopes, is there anyway to tell when my footage might degrade from boosting it to much?

I'll raise my Mids and Highs until the exposure looks good, and isn't blown out, but it seems like it might be making my footage a bit grainy. Is there a technical way to tell when you've added to much gain to your exposure? Or is it all by eye?

I know editing is a good mixture between eyeing it and technical aspects. I feel like I always need to know both at all times

Hi Brady
Grain is one consequence of under exposure. Shooting RAW might help a bit, but a some point, light is the only answer.
How far can you push it? How will it be viewed? 2 extremes; YouTube vid viewed on smartphone or projected on theatre big screen? 2 different answers. Grain much more apparent when viewed blown up.
No matter what, the grain is still there, exposure levels are just cover ups.
Use your eye, brain or the Force young Jedi

Happy Editing, Greg

bradywurtz wrote: ... might be making my footage a bit grainy. …

considered the usage of a de-noiser, such as Neat of PhotonPro...?

Sorry to be a bit of a killjoy here - but being a good content producer means you get the conditions as right as possible -AT THE SHOOT.

Lighting and exposure is key.

Also, are you using a variable aperture lens? You really should go with fast primes... variable aperture lenses look horrible on video...

There are some tools like Neat Video that can do a good job of de-noise...however they tend to soften the image somewhat.

Relying on grading to boost or raise the exposure of underexposed footage will always increase noise, most noticeable in the shadow areas.

Shooting on compressed, 8-bit colour depth codecs like AVHD or XDCAM EX the noise will show up even after mild colour correction. 10-bit codecs stand up much better as you’ve got more information to begin with.

But anyway, I definitely recommend Neat Video. We wouldn't be without it. It's not cheap but can really save footage that you might have thought unusable. As Deano says, NR can make the pictures slightly soft - what I call ‘plasticy’. But Neat has quite subtle controls and with a bit of experimentation you can kill a large amount of the noise with no noticeable side effects. It’s pretty amazing. I think there is a demo version on their site so you could give it a try.

www.neatvideo.com

John

thanks! the end product is mostly viewed on vimeo, so i'm guessing mostly on peoples phones. I do wedding videos. I also put it on DVD for the client but with the ease of the video being online, they most likely view it on mobile. So hopefully that'll ease my worries a bit

I'm shooting on a Nikon D7100 so RAW isn't an option

Deano wrote: Sorry to be a bit of a killjoy here - but being a good content producer means you get the conditions as right as possible -AT THE SHOOT.

Lighting and exposure is key.

Also, are you using a variable aperture lens? You really should go with fast primes... variable aperture lenses look horrible on video...

There are some tools like Neat Video that can do a good job of de-noise...however they tend to soften the image somewhat.

I'm shooting weddings, and here's my issue. Most the receptions are terrible. They never have lighting on the dance floors at most the weddings i've shot. I hate it. I also use a glidecam to get nice and smooth moving shots. The best thing to do for a shot like that is to be on the widest lens i've got, which is my 18-140. So i typically have it on that during the first dance and whatnot. During their dances i like to kinda swing around them once or twice to get a nice shot to use in the highlight video. after the swing, i go to the side and i try and zoom in to get a nice close up shot.

since i'm one guy, and i can't go setting up 3 point lighting for the dance floor myself, not to mention how much the photographers would hate me, and i can't switch lenses during their dance (or i'd miss some of their very first dance), i pretty much have to pick one lens and stick with it. I have a 35mm and 50mm prime as well. but again, i need to be as wide as possible during the glidecam shots or it turns out very shaky.

and it's not like i can stop them and have them do their dance over again. i have to do this on the fly.

would you suggest not using the 18-140 and just stick with the 35mm during the receptions? i hate not being able to get any kind of tight shots of people without getting in their face though, but again, this is only an issue for me at receptions. the rest of the day typically is fine.

I just wish DJ's would light their dance floors sometimes, ya know?

I should have clarified this more...

Lenses with variable aperture are OK... as long as you do not adjust the exposure mid-record.

Good luck with that. At the very least, they need to be 'de-clicked' for mid-record exposure adjustments.

I have a variety of lenses when I shoot with my Canon DSLR...

Bottom line is you want a lens that is fast as possible, that lets in as much available light as possible.

Also maybe you should consider the Sony A7S camera in your future workflow...

Dean...

I've shot fairly extensively with the Nikon D7100. Like most (though not all) Nikons, you can't change the aperture during a shot - the aperture is locked in when the shutter is opened for Live View mode. The exception is if you're using old fully-manual lenses with physical aperture rings, but most recent Nikon-fit glass is electromechanical aperture and set on the camera only. In practice I've personally not found this to be an issue (I'll pull exposure with a variable ND filter when needed), but I know for some people it's a deal-breaker for the Nikons.

The major issue with the D7100 specifically is sensor noise. I think it's the only recent Nikon that's used a Toshiba sensor, and it's notoriously grainy with a lot of fixed pattern noise to the output. Shadow detail is particularly ugly, even at low ISOs. However, the image cleans up astonishingly well with a light application of Neat Video filtering, to the extent that I've found D7100 footage entirely usable. There are other issues specific to the D7100 (not present in the D7000 or D7200, ahem), but sensor noise is the big one.

In FCPX I slap Neat Video on almost every D7100 clip, and also a standard Sharpen with setting of about 4.0. Together they make a world of difference, and I've seen footage projected in a high-end cinema which absolutely held up. It's not an Alexa, but it's not half bad.

As for lenses: I've mostly shot on a Sigma 17-50 ƒ/2.8 - not a great lens, but the stabilisation is good and the flare behaviour is sometimes rather pretty. It sits reasonably well alongside footage shot with vintage glass - I've tended to use old AIS 50 and 24mm primes for the more controlled parts of run-and-gun work. I've also shot extensively with a cheap Tamron 70-200 ƒ/2.8 which handles fairly clunkily for stills but works well for video as long as you're on a tripod. The version lacking vibration reduction is extremely good value, in my view.

For the sort of work you're doing, however, I'd be looking to have two camera bodies, one with the 70-200 and the other with a wide zoom or prime. Trying to bridge true wide-angle and even moderate telephoto is rife with compromise, particularly with APS-C sensors.