luminance threshold mask

Hello,

I was wondering if someone knows a way to make a lumanice threshold mask in Resolve.

I basically want to selectively blur the chroma channel of the noisy parts of an image but I don't really know how.

Thanks!

not sure whether the desired effect:
color tab,
add a node
Right click => color space => yuv
then add a splitter combine (CTRL + Y)
Node up = Y
middle node = U
node down = V

then go to BLUR => RADIUS => deselect all channels
select the nodes one by one and after:
the red channel = Y
the green channel = U
the blue channel = V channel
For you treat only the U / V

add NR, use spatial, unlock chroma/luma, set chroma values wher you wish, leave luma at 0.. that will blur chroma only

I think I didn't formulate my question correctly. I want to selectively blur the chroma values of all the lumanicance values from 0.3 and downwards. All the chroma values above .3 luma I don't want to blur.

I'm working with the Lite version.

node, key, luminance only, make your 0.3 key, same node add NR, spatial, chroma only, denoise to taste.

wait, le version DOES NOT HAVE DENOISE. either:
1) but the full license
2) di the key and blur slightly the chroma...
3) buy neat video

selectively blur the chroma values of all the lumanicance values from 0.3 and downwards.

With the Lite version,

Add a correction node, then eyedropper a Luminance secondary qualifier (adjust to isolate the area of interest), then add a second correction node --> change the second node's processing to YUV and uncheck the top channel, which should leave the U/V channels active and responsive to a blur/mist process. Insert a "key" node between the two, and extract the matte from node 1 and feed it to node 2. You may need to invert it, I don't know, I wouldn't use this approach in Studio. Its a bit unorthodox to perform a process on one set of values while using an excluded qualifier as the limiting value.

jPo

Thank you JPOwens.. exactly what I needed! Works great, all the chroma noise disappears, leaving only a subtle curtain of fine luma grain/noise!

https://we.tl/Gt7UiimHqH

It's a very subtle change but it is definately noticeable in certain shots.

This is from a Sony Fs700 + 4K DCI recorder. I designed a LUT with quite an extreme lift of the midtones to get a very smooth filmic shoulder as you can see illustrated in the shot. It introduces quite a bit of noise but if I selectively blur the chroma values it effectively gets rid of all the chroma in the noise. The end result reminds me a lot of 35mm film.

24mm vintage Nikkor AI f2.8 on a Speedbooster with .71x crop reduction, transforming the size of the super 35mm sensor to full frame 35mm film. Tricky to pull focus with longer lenses but wide lenses look gorgeous IMO.

This was shot with 100% natural light so I think it gives you a good impression of what this little camera is capable of.

Also note that this shot is downscaled with the Resolve filters (which look pretty decent to me, but I was told they are not the best). I'm looking for some good software to do a very high quality rescaling with. Always open to suggestions!

Happy it worked out.

Have you tried a fleshtone qualifier/midtone detail (mist) to add a tiny bit of "beauty" cosmetic to your subject?
It would take down the... er... porosity and stubble a bit.

Its a simple thing, people who appear on camera are always concerned, especially now that we are into UHD, and you get a friend/client for life. If that's something that would be handy to have.

As far as re-compressing media goes, frankly I'm astonished at how well the new-ish Apple Compressor4 algorithms have been handling things for me. Also Telestream Episode for doing some kinds of non-Apple codecs. Recently processed through a PSA series that included a request for WMVs.

jPo

By porosity and stubble you mean the right side of his face, the side which faces the light source? Or do you mean the luma noise/grain on the dark side of his face? In this shot, the angle of the light (sun) was a bit extreme for this type of work; this brought out the relief in his face a bit more. I asked him to move a bit closer so that his face just missed the direct sunlight; so it was still mostly skylight through the windows that was lighting him rather than the sun. Unfortunately there was no budget for lights nor diffusion material and somehow the contrast on his face gave him some more character and I think it suited his personality. And I needed the contrast to create separation with the extremely bright background. Maybe if I had some diffusion material with me I would have placed it between him and the light on the right side of the frame.. although.. it would have taken the exposure of his face a bit down and the background was quite bright already..

I personally like the little bumps in people's faces though. I think it makes them look more like themselves; true to life. As a rule of thumb I generally try to find a spot where the light is flattering: soft but with quite some directionality as well so that I can place my subject "correctly" in relation to the angle of the light to create some separation. In most cases I just shoot it like that w/o much retouching if any. On women I generally try to use more frontal/soft light to render the skin a bit smoother. Men can handle a sharper angle and some more contrast IMO. I don't like to touch pixels too much.. except if it's chroma noise. I hate chroma noise

This is a shot of a woman. I was very lucky because the windows in her store had these stopnet-like curtains which softened the light quite a bit and also brought it down a couple of stops.

https://we.tl/6iK1Rb4NbH

I finished this two days ago and they were very pleased (the version they got was with the entire chroma channel(s) blurred). I'm not sure if the luminance key really helps in leaving the non-noisy pixels intact (well I guess in theory it does but side by side comparisons don't show too much difference). But with a luminance key, knowing that only the noisy pixels are blurred, somehow makes me feel more at ease

I will keep your advice in mind though, because no doubt that in the future there will be a few extreme cases in which I'll want to smoothen out bumps in the skin a little bit. But in this particular shot, I didn't really thought it was making him look ugly.. on the contrary, I thought the sharp light angle accentuated his masculinity and I think he didn't mind that at all

One thing I noticed is that depending on the software I'm using to view the stills, certain software softens the image a bit and other software leaves it intact or renders it even sharper. Maybe that could have brought out the relief a little bit more on your side? I thought it looked quite pleasing in Resolve though.

I'm a windows user though so Apple Compressor isn't an option I think. Telestream Episode is currently a bit out of my budget range. But thanks for the suggestions!

What is PSA and WMV? The latter = Windows Movie Video?

What is PSA and WMV? The latter = Windows Movie Video?

PSA = Public Service Announcement, a kind of American commercial done for the public interest (like raising money for charity, being tolerant of different kinds of people, stopping pollution, etc.).

What is PSA and WMV? The latter = Windows Movie Video?

PSA = Public Service Announcement, a kind of American commercial done for the public interest (like raising money for charity, being tolerant of different kinds of people, stopping pollution, etc.).

Thanks, Marc, I'm being a bit obtuse using acronyms. WMV - Windows Movie as you suspected, which is a format that is in some serious need of re-vamping for metadata and VANC if it wants to stay relevant. But anyway...

Interesting additional image. The art direction might raise some eyebrows at least hereabouts -- the orange ambience really competes with the subject's overall coloration, but here's the thing about locality -- the portrayal might be exactly what is required. Giving her a bit more complexion richness would be a challenge since her wardrobe is almost right in the same range of values. That would be tricky without resorting to matte qualifiers and then we're into roto... and so it goes.
Adding a bit of beauty treatment is a very subjective decision -- its almost never about what I like. I'm jumping off from a piece of advice that my daughter absorbed from an acting class a few years ago, where one of her classmates was exploring a role and not sure how they were "feeling" in that emotional context. The instructor observed that no one in the audience cared about the actors' feelings, only their own, what they were getting from the performance. In a very speculative fashion, sometimes I feel like a colorist's interpretation of the values within an image and how they can be re-presented to an audience is a kind of performance -- alongside Ansel Adams' "... negative is the score, print is the performance...." thesis.

How does this look to the audience? producer? performer? If you're coming to an image "cold", what do you see, and does it convey what we're trying to?

jPo

It was a corporate thing. I agree on the orange but I think it was the best spot I could get in her shop. The orange refers to the color of her brand: ROM coffee so I wasn't really uncomfortable with that strong color in the frame. She was talking about her relationship with a soccer club that she is a sponsor with; the goal was to urge other possible sponsors to join the club. I was after naturalism and that's what I got I think.

I agree, if I had more time and if they actually wanted an extreme level of control and precision I would have chosen her wardrobe very carefully (something that matches her natural complexion and would have made her skin 'pop' a bit more while taking into account the orange of her brand) and spent more time on refining the actual frame. I would have gelled all the fluorescent lights in her shop and would have rented a Joker and some bounce material to bring up the room tone a little bit (the left upper corner looks a bit too dark and kinda pushes her towards the window) it is an interesting effect in itself but too strong and pushing in this type of image, I feel. Makes her shop feel too dark and grimey I think.

I would also have softened the light from the window on her and would have tried to place it a little off-center to avoid the reflection of the source in her glasses.

But then again.. where do you draw the line? Budget I guess ^^



And there literally was none; only work hours and the low rental prices of my own gear (lenses/camera/recorder and post-workstation). And then it was just my sound guy and me and the interviewer.

This was shot on 20 minutes, incl. the setup of the frame. We took some handheld inserts of the shop as well but they didn't make the cut as they were unnecessary (drew attention away from the story) and the medium/close shots held up nicely by themselves.


Apart from that.. it's an interesting idea to think about: how much control do you want, how much does the control really 'help' with the story and the perception of the viewer, and how much room do you leave for little accidents or little strokes of chaos and spontaneity?

I kinda like the spontaneity of things and don't want to manipulate too much. Because if you pay attention on set and react intuitively to any sort of input you might get (the way some light falls into a certain room, the color of an object, the mood of the scene, the point of the story, lines, shapes, values, little details, reflections, etc..) you can really discover some amazing things that you can use to help you tell the story.

I don't like to envision things too much because I find that even my best imagination is hardly ever as interesting, complex and surprising as reality itself. Imagination is a representation of reality, like an aftervision, grown out of an infinite collection of memories. Now you can apply will to imagination as well as you can apply will or control to the physical world. But there's something exciting about falling in love with an idea and intuitively following it as it works its way down into manifestation but without trying to control it too much; in stead just observing its path and graciously directing its flow downwards without blockages. Kinda like playing jazz.

When I work like that, I'm having a lot of fun. I'd rather spend most of my time looking for the right spot or the right location than afterwards having to bend the image according to my will. Sitting before a computer is not my natural habitat and I don't feel comfortable other people grading/finishing my work. It's an ego-thing on my part, I know, but that's the way I like it I'm proud of my work. Not that I think it is any good, but I will always be protective over my work anyhow.

When I make a shot, I generally only consciously try to think about one thing: the focal point of the story and whether or not I see it reflected correctly in the overall mood of the frame. Then I change a few things and when my gut feels it, I just roll. And then I just accept the image as it is. I don't like to work on it too much later on.. it somehow feels wrong and kinda disrespectful to the image you've been given. Of course there are exceptions, but I'm talking about my general personal preferences/filosophy.

My Lut is designed with this sensibility in mind; the midtones are pushed into the highlights to increase the amount of range in the shoulder of the image. I really like detailed highlights and filmic rolloff. The midtones themselves aren't very contrasty nor saturated. The blacks go black pretty quickly but I'm able to hold both window and interior of a room in most rooms (if the windows are large enough and many).

The Lut is designed with wide dynamic range-scenes in mind; suited for naturally lighted environments; so this is how I light as well; I don't use much fill, hardly any actually. I just make sure that the contrast in the scene is wide enough to give me a contrasty image if I want one.

I don't say that I think that this is the only way to work, not at all; just my personal way of working. I'm very aware of the technical wonders other people achieve with their own ways of working.. And that's the beauty of it really; when every one's work is unique (partly, a unique reflection of themselves) then there's going to be a lot of difference between everyone's work; that makes watching your peers' work, extremely fun, I feel

But in the end, too much control doesn't appeal to me.. too much control can often distract from the actual focal point. If I feel that the focal point is where it should be, then I think the shot will work.. at least to my standards. The rest is just details and I will still try to get as much of the details right on location but only given it is within time/budget contraints.
And apart from that I think too much control can sometimes even "deaden" an image.. making it too sterile, you know? I like that it always has a certain 'edge' to it.. some degree of roughness and unpredictability; like life itself. I really appreciate that and I think there's a lot of beauty in it as well