Footage doesn't look filmic/arri like

timeline nodes:
clip nodes:

Image ugly:

Someone said I should use the arri c log and not blackmagic film to extended video
It doesn't matter which one I use, it just looks like ****.
Look how good that looks!! I want that!

Your typical arri image! *love*

Look how good that looks!! I want that!

Then find equivalently lit scenes, and equivalent scenery, and grade it in the same way as your preferred samples.

There is no such thing as a "typical" Arri image, distinct from lighting, grading and setting.

The guy from the 2 videos said tho to use arri c log to get this look. Change shadows and highlights. DONE.

But that is not the case.
Why equiv. scenes?

And I have seen many videos with this beautiful look. So nobody needs equiv. scenes as you said. Because every scene looks different.

How do I grade it in the same way?

The guy from the 2 videos said tho to use arri c log to get this look. Change shadows and highlights. DONE.

But that is not the case.
Why equiv. scenes?

And I have seen many videos with this beautiful look. So nobody needs equiv. scenes as you said. Because every scene looks different.

How do I grade it in the same way?

For starters you should check scopes for both, compare it to yours and that should give you a good indication on where they differ.

By years of experience. There is no magic "make it look nice" button, not even with black magic.

By years of experience. There is no magic "make it look nice" button, not even with black magic.

Seconded.
Do some online colour grading tutorial. There is no easy way as every clip can have a completely different look straight from the camera. Colourists get paid well because of the years of experience, not because they use a particular software.

Do some online colour grading tutorial. There is no easy way as every clip can have a completely different look straight from the camera. Colourists get paid well because of the years of experience, not because they use a particular software.

Good advice. I would start with color management, because to my eye you have made some mistakes there, which will prevent you from getting any good image.

The people who made the videos and many others do not have years of experience. They are young. Like 18-25 yo or so.

Good advice. I would start with color management, because to my eye you have made some mistakes there, which will prevent you from getting any good image.

Agreed: looking at your screenshot from Resolve, you're applying a color space transform from the wrong version of BMD Film to Rec709, but more importantly you're simultaneously and redundantly applying a camera LUT to accomplish the log to Rec 709 normalization (in this case from Arri Log to Rec 709). Why?

Since when is film gen 1 wrong for bmpcc? That's what I have read online. There is no official guide from blackmagic, so I can only guess things around...

Isn't it normal to apply a lut? I don't know why. That is what others do and their image looks beautiful.

Since when is film gen 1 wrong for bmpcc? That's what I have read online. There is no official guide from blackmagic, so I can only guess things around...

Isn't it normal to apply a lut? I don't know why. That is what others do and their image looks beautiful.

Ah, right, sorry, I forgot you're using the original BMPCC....when you started talking about using the Arri LUT I assumed you were using the BMPCC 4K, since some people have reported nice results using the Arri LUT with that footage, plus the youtube links you shared were footage from the BMPCC 4K.

Try turning off the color transform and just using the LUT. Or remove the LUT and just use the color transform. You're doing the same thing twice using two different approaches: the color space transform is translating your log footage to Rec709 color space, but so is the LUT.

The simplest approach is to forget all of that and use Resolve Color Management in your project settings, no need to apply a LUT and no need to apply color space transform to each clip.

That are the Color Managment Settings. I don't understand a thing there.
I record in prores. Why isn't that there?

That are the Color Managment Settings. I don't understand a thing there.
I record in prores. Why isn't that there?

As others have told you, you should spend time learning the basics so you understand what you're doing and why. But since you seem to be impatient and want quick fixes, here are a few tips:

1. Prores is not a color space, it's a codec. You're recording Prores files, but your camera is presumably set to the "Film" colorspace (instead of "Video"), right? That means you're recording in log, which is good because it gives you the greatest latitude for grading your footage to your liking in post.

2. Log footage needs to be brought into the Rec 709 colorspace before you can start grading it. There are a few ways to do that: you can use a camera LUT (aka a technical LUT), or a better way is to use color management in Resolve.

3. In the "Color Management" section of the Project Settings, in the Color Space & Transforms section, change "DaVinci YRGB" to "DaVinci YRGB Color Managed." For the Input Color Space, choose Blackmagic Design Film Gen 1. For the Timeline Color Space, use Rec.709 Gamma 2.2 if you're going to be only delivering to youtube or otherwise viewing on computer screens. Same for the Output Color Space.

4. Now you need to set the input color space on all your clips; by default Resolves assumes it is Rec709 but in your case that's not true. In the Media Pool select all your clips and right-click, look for the "Input Color Space" menu item and choose Blackmagic Design Film Gen1. If you don't see "Input Color Space" as a menu item, you probably selected a timeline by mistake when you selected all your clips. Only select clips in the media pool, not timelines.

Now you're ready to grade. Be sure to turn off the "Color Space Transform" option that you set on the color page, you don't need that anymore. And turn off those Arri LUTs! I don't think they'd look good on the original BMPCC footage, only the BMPCC 4K. Two very different cameras.

Some of your footage may now look pretty bad, but it's easy enough to fix through grading. For a quick-and-dirty fix that often yields very good results, just select a clip on the Color page and click the "Auto Balance" tool at the bottom left corner of the color wheels tab. That will often get you close and then you can fine-tune from there by adjusting lift, gain, and gamma, usually in that order. If you turn on the scopes it'll help you see what you're doing and make sure you're not crushing blacks or leaving highlights clipped that you don't want clipped.

Thank you. That was helpful.
Now to the next step of ...
But do I need to color grade it to make it look like the average movie shot on arri?
Are there movies shot on arri without grading, just cc?

The BMPCC 4K can come closer to matching Arri footage, but as I'm sure you've noticed there are plenty of examples of "filmic" footage from the original BMPCC. As others explained, a lot of the cinema look comes down to lighting, even outdoors. If you're shooting outdoors under harsh midday light, for example, it's going to look very different than if you're shooting in soft evening or morning light.

For color grading, what you've done so far is the first step: getting your footage into the Rec 709 color space and balancing it...this is often referred to as color correction as distinct from color grading, which would be the next step if you want to achieve a certain artistic look beyond what you have now. Resolve has a whole gallery of built-in looks that you can experiment with (they're in the color page); there are also artistic "look" LUTs that you can apply in their own node. Lots to explore there, but you can start with Resolve's built-in looks and apply them on a separate node to make it easy to experiment with them. The nice thing about those looks is that they aren't LUTs so you can actually see what's going on in the node tree, which is pretty educational. A LUT doesn't help you understand grading, it just applies a mathematical transformation.

You don't necessarily have to go beyond initial color correction, it all depends on what you're aiming for.

@1st paragraph, that still does not explain why my footage looks horrible. It's not like movies are full with dawn and husk scenes. 2% of the entire length of a movie, of some movies, might contain golden hour shots. How can lighting be a relevant factor then? You don't need rim lights for a film look.

I aim for visuals like:

If I shoot a green field with trees and direct sunlight, it won't look as beautiful as this image.

Be sure you get the exposure right, try bracketing your shots (experiment with different f-stop/iris settings) and use the histogram on the camera or if you have an external monitor use false color to judge exposure. Also be sure you're using an IR-cut filter on your lens; a lot of my early shots on the BMPCC were ruined by IR pollution.

And then when you're grading preserve as much of the dynamic range as you can. In the photo you just posted there's a lot of detail in the shadows; compare that with the screen shot of your footage.

How can lighting be a relevant factor then?

No matter the camera, lighting determines the color, direction length and harshness of shadows, and lighting ratios. Whether you use studio light or natural light, it's ALWAYS a factor -- and it's always the dominant one. It has more of an affect on the image than the camera does for sure.

You don't need rim lights for a film look.

Not always, but you'd be surprised at how many shots in professionally shot films HAVE rim lights, even though they look like they're 100% natural.

I aim for visuals like:

If I shoot a green field with trees and direct sunlight, it won't look as beautiful as this image.

Then you need to start studying photography. Your camera is quite capable.

The IR pollution that Brad mentioned manifests itself as a red cast in the image, most noticeable in the shadows.

Also consider your composition. You have a plain, bright object in the left middle of the frame that's a visual draw. You also have a lot of leading lines that essentially point to that. As a result you're drawing the eye away from the river, forest, and clouds. If that white object (a pier?) is a part of the story and something is going to happen there, then this would be a great thing to do, but if you want people to look at and admire the forest and river, then it's conterproductive.

@nedag.GER

You only have to post a link to one of your source clips so that we can download it and test it: we'll see what we can draw

Skills make the image, not gear.

But do I need to color grade it to make it look like the average movie shot on arri?

yes

Are there movies shot on arri without grading, just cc?

gradeing / cc are diffrent words for the same process

You only have to post a link to one of your source clips so that we can download it and test it: we'll see what we can draw

good idea, i'd want to know the camera settings tho, so i can match IDT to footage at the start

add some diffusion when shooting, use braw and add diffusion. then, if you want, sharpen in post. also, add a little grain, probably 16mm. and i don't mean just slap it on and expect it to look like an arri. massage it, put a little love in to it. otherwise, sell your house or first born and buy an arri.

Are there movies shot on arri without grading, just cc?

gradeing / cc are diffrent words for the same process

fyi, this is incorrect. color correction and grading are very different. color correction is the process of fixing color issues to make them look as natural as possible. grading is essentially styling your image to taste.

Are there movies shot on arri without grading, just cc?

gradeing / cc are diffrent words for the same process

fyi, this is incorrect. color correction and grading are very different. color correction is the process of fixing color issues to make them look as natural as possible. grading is essentially styling your image to taste.

Lots of people use the terms interchangeably though, just like people mean different things when they say "normalizing" with respect to log footage. There's no universally established terminology.

Lots of people use the terms interchangeably though, just like people mean different things when they say "normalizing" with respect to log footage. There's no universally established terminology.

lots of people do lots of things... doesn't mean it's right.

@Rakesh Malik
Does my image has ir pollution? It is very noisy. The brown ground looks redish with heavy ugly noise.
Oh ****.. I thought that is a good compositino because of the leading lines showing to the left.

@Jean Claude
I don't have a short clip of the river. And I can't export prores as prores in resolve. So I will give you another clip from today. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GCfqn ... F6suhWX7N9
This shot is beautiful: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ql2v- ... dOtGsdAVX7

@Que Thompson
what is add difussion? A filter? bmpcc records in diffuse. why would i diffuse it even more. lol

@Rakesh Malik
Does my image has ir pollution? It is very noisy. The brown ground looks redish with heavy ugly noise.

Possibly. It could also just be that the shadows are underexposed.

Oh ****.. I thought that is a good compositino because of the leading lines showing to the left.

Like I said, that depends on whether what's on the left is what you want to draw the viewer's attention to.

@Que Thompson
what is add difussion? A filter? bmpcc records in diffuse. why would i diffuse it even more. lol

It doesn't. If anything, the BMPCC is too sharp...

you call this sharp?!

the brown ground isn't in shadows. just clouds.

[
It doesn't. If anything, the BMPCC is too sharp...

Remember, we're talking the original BMPCC here, not the BMPCC 4K. I can understand the BMPCC 4K being "too sharp" but not the original Pocket.

Remember, we're talking the original BMPCC here, not the BMPCC 4K.

Yes, I'm well aware of that, and yes it's extremely sharp. That is due to not using an OLPF.

you call this sharp?!

the brown ground isn't in shadows. just clouds.

Don't blame the camera for your mistakes. I got to know my BMCC quite well -- I shot my first feature film on one (plus a Pocket), and several other shorts with it. Were you using NDs? What aperture were you shooting at, and with what lens?

in full resolution this image is not sharp for me.
vari nd. something between f2 and f8. 12mm 2,0

I see you're just here to argue.

I am just saying what I see. Most people say this image is not sharp. Some say it is.
Arguing is included in learning.

in full resolution this image is not sharp for me.
vari nd. something between f2 and f8. 12mm 2,0

Note, I said the CAMERA is sharp. A razor sharp image of an out of focus image is still (three guesses, and the first two don't count...)

If you were are near f/2 you might be seeing a result of shallow depth of field, depending on where you placed the focus plane. Whether or not you're seeing IR pollution isn't obvious, but it's possible. It IS possible to correct it out by balancing the color, though it's easier with raw than with ProRes on these cameras.

Okey. But that doesn't explain why it doesn't look like arri.

I am just saying what I see. Most people say this image is not sharp. Some say it is.
Arguing is included in learning.

Whether an image is sharp enough or not is a matter of opinion. Arguing that is pointless. That sounds like something my ex would say. She was from Germany near Hamburg. Anyway, why don't you go figure it and share it with us... I'd love to make my camera look like an arri. Make a package that does it and I will buy it. If it REALLY makes it look like an arri, I'll break out the big bucks.

Okey. But that doesn't explain why it doesn't look like arri.

Because of how you shot it and how you color graded it.

@que, buy a https://www.apertus.org/de/en
open source and outputs a clean neutral image I think.

Wait. I don't think i color graded it. Just CC.
How I shoot? WIth ETTR. Because clouds.

The Apertus does look promising, but it's anybody's guess when it will be available. It's only been... four years since the crowd funding campaign?

I'm not a fan of ETTR... I've never used it. I prefer to get the image as close as possible to the final result in camera, and in film production you really want consistency in your exposures.

Plus, I learned using Velvia on 4x5. With it's gigantic three stops of latitude you don't get much wiggle room, and if you overexpose a Velvia slide by even one stop, it's toast.

without ettr and consitency, doesn't that mean you use a field monitor with hdr and lut feature?

I use false color and histograms, sometimes if I'm pre-lighting a light meter, and keep skin tone exposure consistent.

isn't ettr via histogram?

how do you find this shot visually?
Stil not happy with it. Looks almost like a handycam.

Here's a comparison of one of your liked examples and a shot from one of my videos shot on a Canon G40.
No LUTs used, just lift, gamma, gain, and a touch of midtone detail and saturation. They appear close on my monitor.
To see the whole video, it is here:

Looks good. But that doesn't mean it always look good under any circumstances.
Would be more interesting to see the g40 in the woods. I'd do the same with the bpmcc.

isn't ettr via histogram?

I've never found ETTR to be at all useful, regardless of the tools. But learn to use false color or a light meter (ideally both), and keep your skin tones consistent throughout a scene.

how do you find this shot visually?
Stil not happy with it. Looks almost like a handycam.

Looks a bit flat and drab. What was your white balance? Have you done any grading on it?

Here are some woods. The top pic is straight out of the camera, the bottom roughly graded. The blue haze in the middle of the pic is remnants of the exhaust from a passing diesel locomotive.

That's why many professionals like to have a fog generator around for exteriors…

To the OP: even a BMPCC may not handle the contrast ratio if you expose for those highlights in the clouds, making your shadow areas too noisy. Normally, you'd want to pull the shadows down to keep them clean.
Never expose at a level that makes you pull your deepest shadows up or noise will be the reward!

lots of people do lots of things... doesn't mean it's right.

on the thirteen feaures i've finished so far this year "cc" and "gradeing" in the real working world are same thing... i have ACES do the normalizing for me, LUT's are not needed in this workflow

My cleints seem to be ok with this, and no one seems to think i'm not "doing it right".

i've done DI's since 2002, i was working with Cyborg 2k back then, in the dawn of digital image processing "Color Correction" was the common American term, "Gradeing" was British word for the same process

18 years later nothing's changed on that file, despite what some random dude on the interweb says

but in same real world i have never seen BMD camera footage, i mainly get Alexa and RED raw footage coming in through the front door, with some little DJI inserts and GH5/A7 crash camera's

if someone posts a link to cam orig, and i have time i'd be interested in looking at it, i have loads of well shot Arri RAW to compare / match it to on my arrays today

BTW... 18 years ago Cyborg had volumetric lighting of 3D objects in the gradeing UI, miles ahead of Resolve today in many ways, i kinda miss that elegant UI:

Atm I do not have a field monitor or a even more expensive light meter. I also do not work with skins at the moment.
I don't understand why I should do that and not ETTR.
Why don't you ettr for your main subject or seek a middle between subject and background or even sky? Does false color help if you don't have skin to look at?
And a light meter probably only works when you shoot something which is close, like 10 meters away? How about something further away?
WB=5600. I don't know if I did grading. I don't know when you start call something graded.
I can make the shot less flat, but then parade clips.

Flat, no clipping in parade
Not Flat, but clipping in parade
I just changed lift, gamma, gain, saturation and wb. This should not be grading.

@charles the forest looks good somehow. For whatever reasons. The video tho didn't. Looks very handycamy. The colors etc.

@uli but wouldn't it look even shittier if i expose between sky and ground? Sky would be just white.
How do I pull down shadows?
How do I know when I expose at a level where i pull my deepest shadows up?

@DERMOT SHANE
So why did I do with my video? I graded it? What if I didn't tho? What if I did not change the colour of the shadows and the skin tones? Is it still graded?