Only thing done here is color balance each clip (Command+option+"B") and adjust the exposure levels. Lowering the shadows a smidgeon and raising the highlights will get you better contrast that your shots are lacking. Whatever mood or look you're after is all downstream from there. Boosting saturation should also be an option but that's the last thing I'd do to make it 'realistic' before handing it over and asking for final payment.
The problem (apart from the ISO noise, which is easy to fix) is the wild mix of color temperatures, typical for these rooms and a big problem for wedding videographers (photographer's flashes contribute to the disaster).
More often than not, the chandeliers are 2800° eco halogen, whereas the wall lamps have LEDs, which do not blend well. There always are giant windows on one side. You never ever get pleasing *skin tones* under these conditions.
For future situations like this one, there are some rules you can follow during the shoot, and some quite cumbersome tricks for post enhancement.
1. Never use AWB! Every shot will be totally different.
2. Actually, mixed light is the most charming and beautiful thing - if you can control it. It provides natural color contrast. However, if a human face is lit with 6000° from the left and 2800° from the right side ... it's hell ("Wedding clip 2"). Therefore, always try to position yourself in such a way that the faces are predominantly lit by either one or the other source, and manually set the WB accordingly (it's more conveniant and enough to use "light bulb" and "clouds" instead of exact measures - the latter would only result in the said inconsistent look within the sequence).
3. You can always exaggerate the effects of mixed light in post with a connected copy of the clip (alt + drag), corrected for the other light source, overneath the original, and a gradient as a mask sandwiched in between. You control the opacity of the upper clip with it's composite modes, and the degree and angle of the natural light by changing the gradient. Be subtle, but not too much.
4. You can exaggerate light sources with the free "better glow" from Interfacelab. Ever seen Barry Lyndon?
It's not a controlled environment, but if you think about it, you can always control it to some extent.
Agree with the AWB comment but the reason I suggested it as a starting point was:
1) Didn't know how much seat time with FCPX the poster had with editing. (Quick glance screams what the issues are and what steps are needed to remedy them.)
2) The compensation paid for the shoot/edit.
Any editor can spend hours tweaking things just right for THEIR tastes but if it's edited for Client Hayseed's budget/taste/appreciation then it's correct the egregious issues, throw in some swirling titles, some dreamy slow motion, then on the the next $1000 shoot. The $6500 shooter will be slaving overHIS edit, and with good reason.
Maybe he could post what camera, lens, aperture and codec. It's UHD 4k @ 50 fps, Quicktime container, bit rate is very high - 1 gigabit/sec, looks like H264 but can't tell the bit depth. Maybe it's all-intraframe or was transcoded before upload.
Maybe it's a 1" camcorder like a Canon XC15 or something like that. The video noise makes me think it's not a Super35 or full frame camera.
It looks like flat profile but without knowing which one it's hard to pick a camera LUT.
VTCmedia wrote: Any editor can spend hours tweaking things just right for THEIR tastes but if it's edited for Client Hayseed's budget/taste/appreciation then it's correct the egregious issues, throw in some swirling titles, some dreamy slow motion, then on the the next $1000 shoot. The $6500 shooter will be slaving overHIS edit, and with good reason.
English is not my native language, so I learned something new on Thursday, July 4th: We hold these truths to be self-evident ...
Beautiful phrase, at least for a foreigner. And, for what it's worth, it fits to what I am about to say.
It doesn't matter if you get paid $1000, $6500 or anything at all, if you are Roger Deakins, an established wedding videographer or an "aspiring amateur". There is one thing that seems to me self-evident. That is, if you do not want to spend hours or nights in post trying to rescue your footage, you better think ahead, preempting most of what can go wrong, make test shots in suboptimal lighting conditions asf.
Usually you get access to the location beforehand and see what awaits you.
I know how many look down upon wedding videography. It actually is quite demanding, forcing you to get beauty shots under terrible circumstances., show people from their best side, create emotion, improvise in such a way that everything looks artistically controlled - which it needs to be in order to work.
joema wrote: Maybe he could post what camera, lens, aperture and codec.
I've shot one wedding in CDNG. Doesn't help much to get good colors if you have Wedding Clip 3 as your raw image. 5-10% percent better due to better color depth, perhaps. This is not about these things. It's about experience, knowing one's camera like the back of one's hand, and planning and taste.
50p lets me guess the TO lives in a PAL country. Not sure why he chose this framerate, it looks cheap to me. And I am open minded. I watched The Hobbit and I watched Billy Lynn - both looked like TV shows despite the enormous expanses. He should have shot in 25p, with 180° shutter (= 1/50 s). Apart from the 'cadence', it would have doubled the amount of light hitting the sensor and therefore minimize the ISO noise.
Perhaps he wanted to smooth out little shakes because he shot handheld. There is an easy solution to this: gimbals. One doesn't need to show off complicated camera moves, you can just use the gimbal like a sturdy tripod. Easy to be discreet, easy to move around quickly.
A narrow framing also often helps to keep the motif within one main light source. That and the more flattering look of faces make 80mm FF equivalent (or even longer) the perfect lens for a wedding. One more reason to use a gimbal. Primes of course also allow bigger apertures = less need for gain. There are a lot of things to consider ahead of time, and if you do that, the time spent in post is really mostly for polishing and not for desperately trying to make the colors acceptable ...
I made a transition from one career to another about 20 years ago, and wedding videography allowed me to make that transition quickly and affordably. I will say this, wedding videography is brutal, demanding, difficult. Some folks take to it and thrive in it, I salute them. You can't really plan much ahead, you make it up as you go along. Salvaging bad but necessary shots is part of the job.
These are not horrible shots, and do lend themselves to color grading very well. Shoot flat, grade with ease. So all I did was apply the Color Balance, which is the first thing I always do when coloring. Does half the work for me. Then some touches with the color wheels for contrast/brightness, and increase the mid-range saturation a tad. All three shots took me less than a full minute to do. I did find turning on the Stabilizer helped, especially enabling Tribop Mode on the first clip (wide shot).