ProRes not looking anywhere near X5R quality

[jebsmith]

I have been down on the Gulf coast filming various things and I am noticing that my 4k prores 4444 and 444 seems to have a lot of noise, and just a general bleh feel to it. Check this video:

Don't mind the music, I am TDY to the airforce base here and my workstation is back in Kentucky... so no music library.

Thoughts?

 

[Barry Goyette]

Haven't noticed any significant noise on the ProRes that I've shot. (if anything there is more noise in the RAW files than there is in the ProRes which is probably getting a little NR during encoding...Nor do I see any noise in your footage (but this is youtube, so.....) I will say that everything looks soft. I'm sure you focused the camera, right..? Some shots look front focused to me, but again...it's youtube...so... As far as comparing to the I1 -- that's tricky if you don't have the I1 there to shoot the same scene in the same situation. So far the best color I've gotten off the I2 is shooting ProRes (either 422 or 4444...they are pretty much identical) in D-Log and then applying an Alexa Rec709 LUT.

 

[AMGPilot]

One thing that will always help to prevent noise is don't under expose

 

[Feet Up]

Hey Jeb,

Please let us know the details of how this was shot and managed in post. That will help a lot. What ISO? Also lens, aperture and frame rate. Was this D-log? Sharpening, Contrast, etc.

 

[jebsmith]

Hey guys, This was shot on the 25mm, 100SIO 30fps, 60 shutter, around f6-8 with a ND/polorizer filter . I believe it was an 8 or a 16 from the polar pro kit. I did no sharpening in post. I did bring down the darks and mids to try and hide the noise. However.... this was all done in FCPX because I am out with the Airforce and all I have is a MBP.

One thing that will always help to prevent noise is don't under expose

Man... all my editors have always preferred under exposed vs over exposed. I will try around a +1 today

 

[jebsmith]

Haven't noticed any significant noise on the ProRes that I've shot. (if anything there is more noise in the RAW files than there is in the ProRes which is probably getting a little NR during encoding...Nor do I see any noise in your footage (but this is youtube, so.....) I will say that everything looks soft. I'm sure you focused the camera, right..? Some shots look front focused to me, but again...it's youtube...so... As far as comparing to the I1 -- that's tricky if you don't have the I1 there to shoot the same scene in the same situation. So far the best color I've gotten off the I2 is shooting ProRes (either 422 or 4444...they are pretty much identical) in D-Log and then applying an Alexa Rec709 LUT.

Where did you get this LUT and are you applying it in Resolve?

 

[Feet Up]

Hey guys, This was shot on the 25mm, 100SIO 30fps, 60 shutter, around f6-8 with a ND/polorizer filter . I believe it was an 8 or a 16 from the polar pro kit. I did no sharpening in post. I did bring down the darks and mids to try and hide the noise. However.... this was all done in FCPX because I am out with the Airforce and all I have is a MBP.


Man... all my editors have always preferred under exposed vs over exposed. I will try around a +1 today

Was this D-Log?

 

[jebsmith]

Was this D-Log?

It was shot in "none". Sorry I missed that question.

 

[Feet Up]

Got it. You won't want to use the Arri Alexa LUT's (stock in Premiere and Resolve) on this as those are designed for moving from Log to Rec709. This doesn't appear to have been undexposed if it was shot in "none" and if the darks and mids have already been brought down in post. Give it a try in D log with sharpness, saturation and contrast as low as they will go. Then bring it back in post either manually or using a LUT as a starting point. My guess is that those steps will get you a lot closer to your desired result. Maybe post up a few frames to drop box of problem clips and we can have a look .

 

[jebsmith]

I actually went out and **** in RAW today. Where I am at, there is nothing really worth shooting. I will let you all know the results in a few hours.

 

[The Editor]

I actually went out and **** in RAW today. Where I am at, there is nothing really worth shooting. I will let you all know the results in a few hours.

Imodium should be readily available at your local pharmacy.

 

[Barry Goyette]

Where did you get this LUT and are you applying it in Resolve?

I use LUT utility in FCPX, not sure where the alexa LUT came from..there is one that loads with FCPX, but this one I might have downloaded from ARRI. The C300 LUTs are available from canon's Cinema eos support site. There's about a hundred of them

 

[Barry Goyette]

Got it. You won't want to use the Arri Alexa LUT's (stock in Premiere and Resolve) on this as those are designed for moving from Log to Rec709. This doesn't appear to have been undexposed if it was shot in "none" and if the darks and mids have already been brought down in post. Give it a try in D log with sharpness, saturation and contrast as low as they will go. Then bring it back in post either manually or using a LUT as a starting point. My guess is that those steps will get you a lot closer to your desired result. Maybe post up a few frames to drop box of problem clips and we can have a look .

I'm curios if it's the polar pro filter. I've had problems with sharpness with them in the past, and they are known for IR problems which could lead to the blahs. Lack of sharpness can increase the perceived presence of noise. (and again..this footage on youtube doesn't look sharp to me.

 

[jebsmith]

Imodium should be readily available at your local pharmacy.

Damnit!!!! ahahaha I mean shot....

 

[jebsmith]

I figured it out. For some reason FCPX was rendering the video with noise no matter what I did. I removed it, removed all the various final cut directories, reinstalled. Videos are nice a crips now.