Protune Raw White balance files color correcting

[ronscuba]

The clip at 3:28 was shot 1080p protune off, auto white balance. Most of my shots in this mode ended up overly saturated, contrasted and sometimes with funky colors. I will stick with 2.7k protune on, raw wb.

I was a very happy Vegas user for many years, but they started to fall behind. I switched to Adobe basically for the following reasons:
- much larger user base sharing knowledge online both in the mfr forum and other forums
- better industry support, cooperation from hardware, software, video and computer companies
- my local college offers courses in Premiere and Adobe After Effects
- worked with graphics card companies to take advantage of HW technology
- edits raw files without the need to convert to an intermediate codec
- DSLR files, GoPro 2.7k files, everything edits easily, I hear people edit Red 4k files without a problem
- real time full resolution previews without rendering both on screen and on a secondary monitor
- ability to use an HDTV as a full resolution preview monitor displaying TV colors opposed to computer monitor colors. Colors and contrast look different on a computer monitor compared to a TV. If you adjust color and contrast in editing plus you watch your edited videos on a TV and also a computer, this is a big feature.

Shooting protune with raw wb is not for everyone, but if people don't mind doing a little adjustment in editing, it's well worth it.

 

[RockyHeap]

Very Valid points you raise Ron, I agree that Adobe rules the popularity contest, but as I said, I couldn't drive the software from CS5 version. Vegas was cheaper and easier for me, YMMV.

I'm fairly new to shooting video, but been shooting stills for 10+ years,

I'm using a 56" 1080P 240 HZ LED HDTV for my editing "monitor" fed from a liquid cooled dual quad core CPU, 12 gig ram, high end graphics HDMI graphics card, monster wonker Alienware Gaming PC, so I have no hardware issues, though a 1 gig final file size of a 1080P 15 minute long video does take about 30-40 minutes to render.

Thanks again for sharing your experience, Your 6 pack of Guinness is in the mail. Thanks for the "as seen on TV" Ronco filters!

 

[Interceptor121]

Ron you mention protune off which is the standard mode of the gopro ends up with too much contrast and saturation and also the protune on cam raw that seem to produce the best results for you
I am not clear if you tried protune on and auto wb and if you imported directly in premiere or went through cineform
I know premier edits native footage however the clips with protune need noise reduction did you do this in premiere?

 

[ronscuba]

I really liked Vegas. I found it very intuitive and easy to use. I wanted to take my editing to the next level and Vegas fell short on what I was looking for. Premiere's popularity make it easier to find answers. Odds are someone else has had the same question and the answer is a google search away.

My renders are real time or faster depending on the amount of effects used. Real time full resolution previews using my HDTV as a secondary full screen preview monitor is something no one else could do when I changed to Adobe. Not sure if Vegas or other companies do this now. The HDTV vs. computer monitor colorspace issue was also something only Adobe could handle without adding a piece of hardware.

I only have shot protune on with raw WB. Have not tried auto WB with protune. Maybe something to experiment on my next trip. I did not use cineform at all or do any noise reduction in Adobe. What makes you say protune files require noise reduction ?

 

[Interceptor121]

I only have shot protune on with raw WB. Have not tried auto WB with protune. Maybe something to experiment on my next trip. I did not use cineform at all or do any noise reduction in Adobe. What makes you say protune files require noise reduction ?

I don't have an Hero3 just an Hero2 when I import into Cineform the 'protune' preset gives footage similar as you had shot in auto in a way
If you apply the preset "none" it shows the file as is with plenty of noise, no sharpening and low contrast, the same if you load straight into iMovie or Final Cut Pro

Now in iMovie there is no noise reduction possible so the footage is basically not really useable, final cut has 3rd party plug-in I think premiere also has 3rd party plug ins

So this means that protune is pretty much off limits unless you have some excellent conditions or a program with a 3rd party noise reduction or you process the files with a tool before import

I seem to understand you did not do anything with your footage other than light exposure correction that makes me think there was plenty of light??

 

[ronscuba]

I believe the Hero 3 black is spec'd and reported as being better in low light than the Hero 2. To my eye's the Hero 3 black 2.7k with protune on raw WB, shoots clean. I don't see a lot of noise in this mode. 1080 narrow FOV auto wb is a different story. Pretty much useless to me. Most likely due to how narrow FOV is generated.

Plenty of light ? Depends on your definition. When I get home I can post the original file of my wife and the big sponge. This was a deep dark dive shot without a filter. Color is lost, but noise level is acceptable to me. I do have a revision to my Belize video on vimeo. Pretty much the same as posted in this thread with minor changes. A little less contrast throughout the video and less color manipulation on the big sponge clip.

 

[Interceptor121]

OK so you did not do any noise reduction
I have seen some comparable protune footage from hero2 and hero3 in low light - I mean really low light - I see no significant improvements to be honest. to be clear I am only referring to 1080p30 no other modes

 

[reebok]

Hi Ron,
I am interested in shooting in protune/camraw and using post-production. I wonder why you guys bother with filters since these software programs seem to do it all? I know you like the physical filters because in another post you said the filter does most of the work, but doesn't it cost in terms of say, light absorption? if you are good enough at post-processing, is a filter necessary? thanks.

 

[ronscuba]

There are limits to color correction in post. The compressed video files make it difficult for big color corrections even for professionals. You might be able to color correct filterless footage shot at 20 ft, but doing the same at 60 ft. will be very difficult.

Filters do cut light. As you go deeper, the need for light will override the need for color. The exact depth that happens depends on water clarity and your own personal preference between color and light.

The general guideline for clear tropical waters is use a filter at depths of 15-80 feet. My own experience and preference follows this. However, I am not an expert in post processing and my experience is limited to consumer level video cameras. I have heard of people preferring to shoot filterless, but their footage doesn't look as good to my eyes.

As I have gotten older, my focus has gotten away from technical specs, theory, scientific reasoning, etc.. I now tend to pay more attention to results and what was used to produce the results. Technology is improving everyday. Maybe someone out there is getting better results shooting video without a filter. I haven't seen it though. At least with consumer level video gear.

Before anyone asks, DSLR's are a whole different story.

 

[Interceptor121]

Cam raw is nowhere near to photography RAW the footage is still compressed and quite a lot
In fact cam raw is just a gopro marketing invention
It simply mean that noise reduction or sharpness or saturation and contrast are not pumped up and the bitrate is higher so should have less artefacts in addition there is a flat color profile
This allows more aggressive post processing but does not mean you can skip filters while capturing the footage as you would do with a RAW photo
Not only that but you would need to spend some time correcting all footage you take as the out of the box does not look pretty