But at the extreme end, it reminded me almost of the overkill seen in early HDR photography. In these examples, I was definitely impressed with some aspects of how curves were adjusted to bring up shadows and make details more visible. Doing the color grading can have a major effect (good, bad, or just different) on the mood of a video.
Think of the split toned, green/orange aesthetic that was popular in movies for a while. I'm by no means an expert but color grading video is often a detailed process with a lot of room for finding your own creative "vision". I don't know if these are presets or something done in post-processing, but it almost looks like the video equivalent of filter plugins in some cases. and nobody tried to reconcile the two versions afterward.Ĭomparing the amount of usable data availableĪs a Nikon user, I have no direct experience with Magic Lantern (always a bit bummed about that) but I was also wondering the same. The problem with the comparison videos in this thread is that the person/software deciding what to do with the “raw” data has made a bunch of choices to allocate more contrast to shadow and highlight areas, etc., while the in-camera software made a different choice. Often the processed-in-camera version still has enough data that a more-or-less comparable output image can be produced, but if you start peeping on pixels you might notice extra noise, banding, blur, ringing. You’ll get to see places where the standard processing and compression actually lost data.
The fairest comparison is probably to find someone highly skilled at image editing and get them to try to make the best output images they can from both inputs. Default choices are not inherently more correct (or truer to the scene or whatever) than deliberate choices. Many choices must inevitably be made along the pipeline from estimated-electron-count-per-sensor-pixel -> image on a display. There’s not much meaning to a “non-color graded” or “non-sharpened” picture.
0 kommentar(er)
