Rudy Pohl
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.44 #12 · Canon video thread for hybrid shooters... | |
artsupreme wrote:
Hey guys, I'm going to share a different perspective since I see some of you grinding and grinding to master the processing technique to match reality (as seen with the eye). There was a time not too long ago when it was very very difficult to capture the footage we are all capturing now, and those that could do it back then would really stand out from the others. But nowadays when it's pretty damn easy to capture this footage due to the amazing gear we have at our disposal, you will really only stand out with your storytelling/editing/processing techniques vs quality of your footage. Take your same raw footage and have 3 different people edit a story with their own styles and you get three completely different viewing experiences. Most iconic films are remembered specifically because of their deliberate non-standard processing and color science. The intention is to create a signature visual identity that's different from reality, as it creates a certain feel when viewing it. With that said, here's my personal opinion that might be very unpopular here, but it's my personal preference to view images and video that have been edited with alternate processing. I shoot RAW stills for this reason so I can edit my stills to be as far away from reality as possible, without overdoing it. Why? Because the alternate processing is what grabs me and the people I work with. And now that I'm shooting video I continue to shoot clog for the same reason, as it allows me to apply creative color science in post. To me, this is what stands out from the rest considering anyone can capture a great still or video clip with a little effort, and so it all comes down to processing/editing.
With that said I personally would enjoy all of your work more with alt processing, because it would feel different/cinematic to me than what I see every day with the naked eye.
A couple examples to illustrate where I'm coming from. Checkout the car photos of northborders instagram. These are all heavily cross processed with creative color science. He's popular not because he's good at capturing natural photo realistic images of cars, but rather how he processes the RAW files to look very different from reality, with a creative and interesting look to the eye:
https://www.instagram.com/northborders/
And here's the first wildlife video that popped up during a search that gives you the idea of alt processing in nature. I'm not promoting the tool he used but I much prefer the alt look of this type of processing compared to any natural scene. This is an extreme example, and there are probably better examples of that are less cooked, but he did a good enough job to showcase alt processing in nature. There's a bird at 8:00 and there's a scene at 12:20 that converts reality to alt processing, and the processed version is way more attractive to me:
https://youtu.be/r32lzjxklWw
Here's a few examples that are much less cooked with retro/grain/film look etc, but still heavily alt processed.
https://youtu.be/087GAGS6A4Q
https://youtu.be/ay-KbtIza4E
And here's the first comment from the 3rd film that aligns with the purpose of my post:
"I liked that you mentioned in the description that filming took 2 days, but post-production 2-3 months. I think many amateur film-makers imagine that all the work is in the filming, and it really shows. With the same acting and filming as they already did, spending that extra time on post-production would make their films as good as yours.
Well done, we hope to see more."
I'm just throwing this out there in case you want to consider chewing on it or experimenting, and not kill yourselves trying to make things look perfectly realistic. Just my 2 cents.
...Show more →
Hi Brett,
Thanks for this post in which you urge us video-buffs to consider using alternative processing for our wildlife videos to make them more appealing, interesting and watchable. I finally had the time to reread your post, watch all 4 videos you posted and jot down some of my thoughts on the topic.
Firstly, let me say that I agree with you! In fact, I made a post to similar effect in this forum on January 14/26 entitled "Videography goals for 2026 - "Upping my game."
In this post I listed three things I was hoping to work on in 2026 to raise the quality of my videos to make them more interesting and watchable. Here's the link to the post: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1885499/36?keyword=upping,my,game#16967741
In summary I wrote:
"For this coming year I am hoping to up my game in the following ways: Firstly, I want to make my videos more interesting by employing some new shooting techniques (dare I use the word "cinematic") and thereby improving my B-roll content. Secondly, I want to include more quality, on-location recordings of the wildlife subjects that I'm filming and the ambient natural sounds. And finally, I want to start shooting all of my footage, wherever possible, in Canon Log 3, which my Canon R5 is capable of. Up until now I have only shot in 8-bit 4:2:0."
Regarding using alternative processing as you suggest, here's my take.
In a nutshell, my view is that when it comes to wildlife videography/filmmaking unless the alternative processing is done appropriately and done well, instead of improving the video it can seriously degrade its visual quality and watch-ability. In my opinion, the first video you posted falls squarely into this camp. I think it's really quite bad in a number of ways and won't take the time to critique it.
The second video IMO is excellent - it's interesting and very watchable. It uses various cinematic slow motion camera movements, likely done with a gimbal, and it uses back-lighting quite effectively. The birds and insects in it look realistic with appropriate image quality and colours. The colour grading is subtle enough to make the video look and feel different, but doesn't overwhelm it with stuff that's just not real. The time-lapse sunset at the end is wonderfully done and is a perfect ending. Hats off to the creator of this little gem.
The other two videos are certainly very interesting and watchable, however they're not really wildlife videos. Some of the alt processing used in them might be applicable in wildlife footage - not sure.
Here's my take on alt processing in wildlife videos.
1. The wildlife subjects presented in wildlife videos/films must be realistic in image quality and colour. Any alt processing should be minimal at best when it comes to these subjects. Heavier stylistic colour-grading should be reserved for B-roll footage like landscapes and sky scenes where the creative "Look" of the video can be developed. A touch of this colour grading can be applied to the wildlife itself, but only enough to make those scenes consistent with the B-roll footage and the overall Look.
2. As for me, I am aiming to achieve a more cinematic outcome in my videos through an effective use of various creative camera moves, which is why I recently bought a good quality mini powered gimbal. Alt colour grading on the wildlife subjects will be minimal and only enough to make that footage consistent with the overall Look.
3. Regarding interest and watch-ability, I'm in the camp of those who believe that the key element needed to make a video/film interesting and watchable is the story. Visuals and audio are always important, but the story is king. Without some kind of good story, all the great visuals and sound won't matter that much. Anyways, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Sorry for the many words, but I don't know how I could have done it in less.
Cheers,
Rudy 
Edited on Mar 03, 2026 at 08:57 AM · View previous versions
|
