To the editors at Linus Media Group...

[Mooshi]

Editing the video with an artificial curve might look nice, but it's not pure. It's on par with air brushing a model or having a crappy TN panel with a massive contrast ratio with a bit of glass to hide the fact it's a low end monitor. I prefer as realistic as possible when it comes to products because these are things people have to live with. "This looked better on video than it does in real life".

[Proctie]

Editing the video with an artificial curve might look nice, but it's not pure. It's on par with air brushing a model or having a crappy TN panel with a massive contrast ratio with a bit of glass to hide the fact it's a low end monitor. I prefer as realistic as possible when it comes to products because these are things people have to live with. "This looked better on video than it does in real life".

Real all the posts before you throw out statements. This has nothing to do with the look / feel of the clip, but correcting it. They shoot with raw flat formats that "compresses" all highlights and shadows down to retain as much information in the shadows as well as in the highlights as possible. When doing that, you get a file that looks like this: 

Notice how the luma levels range from around 15 and 80? That's a "flat" image right there and looks "smokey" or like there's a mist in the air or that the lens has a gray filter on. (not natural like you describe it). The correct descriptions for this look would be: unedited, raw, flat, and so on. The "compressed" luma levels as I've mentioned is a result of the RAW recording, since the camera can't pick up details in the highlights or shadows if the luma levels peak at 100 and 0, that's why it's "compressed" like that. But, when you record RAW video, it's a must to do luma / levels correction to get the proper contrast. That's called color correction, and not color grading. You see there's a difference. When you grade, you "change" the look / feel of the scene like shifting color tones, etc like this: http://b.vimeocdn.com/ts/668/174/66817411_640.jpg

Or like this:

But when color correcting, you correct the footage and that includes fixing the luma levels to get the proper contrast or shifting the gamma to brighten / darken the footage due to a missed exposure when filming and so on. It's not an "artificial curve", it's called correcting the image. Afterwards, you can add "artificial curves" when grading, to shift the look / feel of the scene.. But that's not what my topic is about.

And finally, here's a color corrected example where the luma levels were corrected to peak at 100 and 0 (perfect contrast).

 

But I do agree that the "flat look" is a thing and can sometimes be used, but it only works in very few situations - but again it's more of an artistic look and art is subjective. The look of the clip is 100% up to the editor, however "the look" has to make sense or match the content for the best result. A product shot like this could be graded to have a different look, but when shooting a product you generally don't mess with the look by grading it (depends on the plot / content) however you do apply the almost "mandatory" edits like these luma corrections when dealing with RAW video formats or flat settings on compressed formats. Of course you have less headroom with the compressed formats, but that's the downside of trying to achieve a higher dynamic range with camera that don't support RAW formats.

[Proctie]

Editing the video with an artificial curve might look nice, but it's not pure. It's on par with air brushing a model or having a crappy TN panel with a massive contrast ratio with a bit of glass to hide the fact it's a low end monitor. I prefer as realistic as possible when it comes to products because these are things people have to live with. "This looked better on video than it does in real life".

 

That should NOT be a reason for a production company to compensate by producing flat images for those who have high-constasty monitors..... I work in a studio, and you make out the look of the scenes by looking at aplha, waveform, vector and RGB scopes and not monitors. You review the look on calibrated screens and do minor adjustments for color tones or other corrections, but you don't compensate for a certain group of people with "bad" screens by not getting correct luma levels...

[aselwyn1]

I love the after shot

[Calavera]

I just love how Linus responds to feedback from his community, he's a pretty big celebrity and yet fails to feel like someone who is above everyone else.

[TheProfosist]

@Heinz I do understand color correcting and have only had to do it for certain media even from original as I usually work with something final and fully edited and usually only do stuff format specific. Its been a while since ive had to do anything like that though because with BDs things have gotten a bunch better. With the comparisons you posted I would have to say that pictures were chosen to show the biggest difference if you know what I mean because even with just the thumbnail I can tell significant difference which is substantially better. I know that you didnt have much to work with in the original post but I dont know if id consider it better? I can see where its needed for all the images but could be done better but I understand what you really wasnt enough to treat it properly. O and heads up if it matters im looking at this on my PA249Q.

[Proctie]

@TheProfosist You are correct that some of my examples may be overdone, but that's the downside of grading a screencap. I loose much more information when cc'ing it due to it not being the source footage (That's why some of the shots look overdone). What I've explained in post #27 (a reply to Mooshi) is really just my only point.

I'm not arguing what look they should go for (graded look) because that's considered art and is subjective to each person including the camera operator as well as the editor, but what I am suggesting is that they process their files properly with levels and all that (again, not talking about color grading). It's just like Linus said in the review of the Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera, he says that you have to color correct and process the footage a lot since it looks flat right out of the camera - same goes for the Black Magic Cinema Camera which was used according to Edzel. They recorded in RAW which needs luma correction to stretch out the highlights/shadows to get a proper contrast. I can tell on my calibrated Eizo CG276 that it looks flat, and when doing product shots, video or stills you need to have the look represent the product in a way that it's not dull and boring.

I don't doubt that Edzel knows how to do this and he said earlier in this thread that it was a weird bug when exporting and uploading to youtube that caused this overall look of this particular video which was not the intention.