Color Checker as refrence

The editing is the key, if you look at the "Angel of the Deep", at 1:49 and 2:32, any camera can get this kind of shot (DSLR, RED, Point & Shoot), there is nothing special about the color and composition on those specific frame/clip. At the end of the day, it's how you use the clips you shoot, put them together (with the help of appropriate music), and create the right emotion.

 

A couple years ago I was just obsess about 4K cameras, until recently I just starting to pay attention to use Premiere Pro properly, stop just using fade in fade out transition, try to do complex stuff. I have to say, having more than basic editing skill makes a big difference.

So you are back to my post or bottom line my signature "Your new gear will not make you produce any better art than you already do"

I never imply that a new/better gear would make a better artist, I just point out that a lot videographers do not tell people what/how they use their equipment.

A new version of don't ask don't tell

That Thislegorm video is very impressive, only thing I can say in terms of the colours is that it appears a fisheye lens was used, so minising the amount of water between camera and wreck which is proving some excellent colours. But still I think we all know it's a canon eh! :-)

As to camera upgrades and equipment. I've gone back for the time being to 1080 but filming at 60fps - this has made a massive difference to the quality of my videos, yes I've now got a GH5, but going to stick with the GH4 for a while and improve my craft using what I have. Been really enjoying filming with a red filter - very little to adjust in post and the foreground colours really do pop.

Hoping we get an answer on how well the xrite survives the water

Regards - Richard

That Thislegorm video is very impressive, only thing I can say in terms of the colours is that it appears a fisheye lens was used, so minising the amount of water between camera and wreck which is proving some excellent colours. But still I think we all know it's a canon eh! :-)

 

As to camera upgrades and equipment. I've gone back for the time being to 1080 but filming at 60fps - this has made a massive difference to the quality of my videos, yes I've now got a GH5, but going to stick with the GH4 for a while and improve my craft using what I have. Been really enjoying filming with a red filter - very little to adjust in post and the foreground colours really do pop.

 

Hoping we get an answer on how well the xrite survives the water

 

 

Regards - Richard

Yes.. definitely a fisheye lens, which means it was a DSLR, which, given the timeframe, probably means a Canon 5D Mark II. No real secret that the Canons have always produced nice white balance results at depth with good noise characteristics too because of the large sensor.

As for the whole equipment vs. skill debate, I think it's definitely true that what you put in front of the camera, the story, and the skill of the camera operator, director and editor ultimately have a much larger impact on the overall production value of a film than any technical characteristics of the camera itself. That said, equipment does impose real limitations -- for example, you won't be able to include nice slow motion sequences if your camera can't shoot at 48 or 60fps, and to get really nice colors at depth you're going to need a camera that can white balance well, powerful video lights, or both.

So I definitely understand why people ask what camera was used to film something -- it can be important information. On the other hand, I do sometimes feel frustrated when others ask me what camera I used to film something because it does feel like less experienced shooters ascribe the overall quality of the finished product to the camera choice -- when in fact other factors make much more of a difference. Hard as a creator to not feel like your skill isn't being unappreciated by the lay public at times.

Regarding Florian's work, I'm pretty sure Angel of the Deep was filmed primarily using a Red Scarlet-W. That said, most of Florian's projects before 2017 were filmed on a GH4 I believe. Actually, going through Florian's work in chronological order is quite interesting. You definitely see the way he's improved over time. And very little of that improvement has to do with gear, IMO.

The editing is the key, if you look at the "Angel of the Deep", at 1:49 and 2:32, any camera can get this kind of shot (DSLR, RED, Point & Shoot), there is nothing special about the color and composition on those specific frame/clip. At the end of the day, it's how you use the clips you shoot, put them together (with the help of appropriate music), and create the right emotion.

 

A couple years ago I was just obsess about 4K cameras, until recently I just starting to pay attention to use Premiere Pro properly, stop just using fade in fade out transition, try to do complex stuff. I have to say, having more than basic editing skill makes a big difference.

I think that's only partially correct. Both those shots of the threshers are filmed overcranked (at least 60fps, perhaps even 120fps) and slowed down to 24fps for the nice slow-motion effect. And getting that close to the threshers does require a certain level of comfort in the water, good buoyancy, steady hands, etc. But definitely, the two shots in themselves aren't necessarily special, it's the entire piece, the story it tells, and the emotions it invokes.

I'd also argue that focusing on transitions is the wrong place to focus on -- fancy transitions that don't support the overall story you're trying to tell often just come across as gimmicks. Look at Hollywood movies for example -- how often do you see them using fancy transitions between scenes? Usually you want to make your transitions as invisible as possible so you don't distract the viewer from the story or message you're trying to convey.

Are you sure?

From what I see in their latest productions they have a Red in Nauticam housing. Maybe Canon as b-cam?

As for the whole equipment vs. skill debate, I think it's definitely true that what you put in front of the camera, the story, and the skill of the camera operator, director and editor ultimately have a much larger impact on the overall production value of a film than any technical characteristics of the camera itself. That said, equipment does impose real limitations -- for example, you won't be able to include nice slow motion sequences if your camera can't shoot at 48 or 60fps, and to get really nice colors at depth you're going to need a camera that can white balance well, powerful video lights, or both.

 

So I definitely understand why people ask what camera was used to film something -- it can be important information. On the other hand, I do sometimes feel frustrated when others ask me what camera I used to film something because it does feel like less experienced shooters ascribe the overall quality of the finished product to the camera choice -- when in fact other factors make much more of a difference. Hard as a creator to not feel like your skill isn't being unappreciated by the lay public at times.

I couldn't say it better.

It's a shame we hijacked the thread. I'm the culprit

I'd also argue that focusing on transitions is the wrong place to focus on -- fancy transitions that don't support the overall story you're trying to tell often just come across as gimmicks. Look at Hollywood movies for example -- how often do you see them using fancy transitions between scenes? Usually you want to make your transitions as invisible as possible so you don't distract the viewer from the story or message you're trying to convey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolve_(filmmaking)

Modern editing uses cut. As the article states, usually a dissolve means a temporal jump. Other kind of transitions/effects must be strongly support the story. i.e. a wave effect passing from land shots to underwater shots. IMO they must be used very rarely.

I've been using a lot of fading in my first videos until I become expert with editing. Actually they were a signal of my hesitation during editing

Hi,

Please accept my apology for not participating due to busy schedule
here is a screen video capture that demonstrates the use of the color chart in Davinci Resolve:

https://youtu.be/-OJvrwIFBY8

Firstly about editing - there is an old editors saying 'If you can't fix it, mix it' so try not to do so many fades and mixes guys and remember to shoot your cutaways when you are down there.

Secondly and a bit more on topic I reckon the new Inon variable filter combined with some playing around with a colour checker should help us all become better colour graders.

Great find, Davide. That WB is truly amazing considering the clip is from 2010, you hardly find anything matching this in 2017. Must have been a very capable camcorder setup.

Definitely looks like Canon color.

Great find, Davide. That WB is truly amazing considering the clip is from 2010, you hardly find anything matching this in 2017. Must have been a very capable camcorder setup.

Looks like its Canon 5D Mk2 from his other stuff posted online.

Thanks Thani. thats interesting, never thought of using an X-Rite underwater...

 

Any experience on the durability if this kit when used underwater? As they are not particularly cheap, I'd hate to buy a new one after every dive trip

I had it for almost a year and it still looks good. I had frequent dives but not sure how many.

DSC Labs makes one specifically for underwater use. A bit pricy. I've never used it, but I'd be curious to hear if it's been useful to others.

 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/765246-REG/DSC_Labs_HSP_Splash_Underwater_EFP_Chart.html

Thani, any chance you could share the raw footage somewhere? I'd be curious to see how useful it is for adjusting colors in post. What depth was this filmed at, and using what camera?

 

Also curious to see that even after matching the colors the sand in the background still has a very pronounced blue tint. Perhaps because the white balance is done for the slate which is a few meters shallower then the sandy bottom?

Regarding, the tinit of the background seabed, this is how I remeber seeing it with my eyes hence the lights don't reach that far. But it is a preference and hence it is a 10bit depth you can really have it your own way.

Please watch "the how to match clip" I published couple of days to see the use of the color chart in action.

Any questions or feedback is welcome.

Hi,

I wanted to update the topic with some images that show the condition of the color checker after 4 years of use. Honestly, I am impressed with the quality of the chart especially with color blocks that are still retaining the original colors. The main problem is that the pages after a lot of use come out cause the glue deteriorates. This can easily be fixed by using super glue.

If you do underwater videography as a profession or you can afford a color checker, it is worth the investment. Remember to chose a video chart that is supported by your editing/color correction program. The color checker needs good lighting to produce good result. It can get you to a good starting point for color correction or can be used as a good reference.

Does using a colour checker only allow you to balance the colours for subjects at the arbitrary distance the chart is held at from the lens?

Would it not be simpler and more economical, when using ambient light,  to use red filters and white balance off of a white or grey card before hitting record?

I'm planning to sew a section of my 18% grey microfiber cleaning cloth onto the back of my HECS dive skin glove to use a a white balance reference when shooting ambient light video. The back of my hand is slightly bigger than the manual white balance set box on my Panasonic GH5 with a 14-42ii behind a WWL-1. 

1 hour ago, joncroweucl said:

Does using a colour checker only allow you to balance the colours for subjects at the arbitrary distance the chart is held at from the lens?

Would it not be simpler and more economical, when using ambient light,  to use red filters and white balance off of a white or grey card before hitting record?

I'm planning to sew a section of my 18% grey microfiber cleaning cloth onto the back of my HECS dive skin glove to use a a white balance reference when shooting ambient light video. The back of my hand is slightly bigger than the manual white balance set box on my Panasonic GH5 with a 14-42ii behind a WWL-1. 

 

It is a different level. White balance corrects the overall balance but the hues may still be off

A colour checker instead neutralises everything for accuracy

Keldan makes a submersible version with a grey card (for exposure) on the other side

personally am not obsessed by accurate colours as I change them anyway

On 7/9/2021 at 6:03 PM, Interceptor121 said:

It is a different level. White balance corrects the overall balance but the hues may still be off

A colour checker instead neutralises everything for accuracy

Keldan makes a submersible version with a grey card (for exposure) on the other side

personally am not obsessed by accurate colours as I change them anyway

True. You can white balance on few different objects but better to have a grayish tone. You will never know if the color rendering is accurate in difference lighting situation even with artificial lighting.

The point of using a color checker is to have an accurate reference to ensure that the WB method is producing an accurate enough colors. Once you have achieved the correct colors with a known WB method, you don’t have to use the color checker all the time unless you are shooting in a totally different environment/seas.

I used my dive skin glove as a template to cut out a section of a 18% grey microfibre cloth and sewed it to the palm:

The palm of my hand is plenty big enough for the white balance function on my GH5. Please note I have not used this on a dive yet. I'll get the chance to use it in Sept 2021.