@magnus387 Awesome, man. It's really great that you are just taking CGT and running with it. I can't wait to see the finished video.

@johnnym -- I can't make everybody happy. I don't do less contrasty (read: boring) I don't get hired to do it, it's other people's thing. For me to be engaged in my job on-set, and actually care about the gig, it can't be boring. I have to love what I'm seeing. So I neither apply for, nor market myself to those who want that look. There are plenty of other DPs doing less contrasty work. They're better at it, they enjoy it, and they tend not to stand out from the crowd. (By that I mean, there are so many people doing it, that it's hard to be unique in a sea of boring... Beautiful, but boring.)

I got the gig I recently booked BECAUSE my stuff is heavily stylized and contrasty. It was what they were looking for. They wanted a new look for their show. They got a glimpse at the RED footage I referred to in my last response to you, which was my best work yet, they were blown away by it, asked who did it, did a little research on me, got my number and called me in.

Stand apart from the crowd... Or don't... It's up to you.

@johnnym I'm not upset. Just explaining myself.

I like that you are aspiring to achieve something akin to Deakins's work. You'll eventually discover everything I'm about to tell you for yourself --- As you gain access to quality gear, you'll find there's a reason it's so pricey. A simple set of CP2 Primes is in a completely different league from my modest Nikon glass. Move up to the Zeis Master Primes, and the Super Speeds, and you've moved into a another class. THEN start comparing that super-expensive glass to Cooke S4's, and Panavision Lenses, and you begin to see that 50% of that look you are searching for is coming from that glass, another 25% from the characteristics of the recording media (be it film, Alexa, RED) and the final %25 is the artist.

Now with that: that final 25% chunk is the most important to getting something unique and beautiful, but even inept lighting shot with expensive glass, with a 4K 4:4:4 medium will still look pretty damn good. When I first started (and when I first started I was completely inept) I was shooting album covers, and publicity photos for my musician friends on 35mm film. And the film was so forgiving that I somehow managed to make stuff people liked, and would pay for, and I naively thought I could do the same with Digital Video and start making movies. I was wrong, and it was then that I had to learn my craft. And I like that I've learned to make the low end equipment look decent, because I know with the high-end stuff I can make magic. It's like learning to play guitar on that beater you bought at the pawn shop for $100, and then finally getting to play a $3000 PRS, and the thing almost plays itself, and sounds heavenly.

Get as close to what you want to do with the equipment you've got, build yourself a workshop and spend every moment you can playing with your medium. Shoot, analyze, make corrections, shoot again, revise...learn, shoot again, and you'll eventually get there, but with the understanding that there's a reason the High-end stuff looks the way it does. And hopefully when your opportunity to prove yourself comes you'll be ready to shine.

But to answer your question, with the same lenses, and the same lighting and exposure, absolutely. But don't expect to get that look with lo-end glass. If Deakins shot with the GH2, Panavision Lenses, and his lighting and expertise, it would look like his stuff - minus the characteristics of the higher-end medium.

@Shain, great work man. Cant wait to it, let us know when it is going to air so we can all take a look. Can't wait for the film school videos, learned so much from your videos thus far. If you ever need a hand on set, feel free to PM me, I would love the experience.

@Shian Hi Shian, was curious about your workflow for the GH2 Files. I understand that you edit with 32 bit per channel under the Color Settings, but which Working Space do you select? Should we be using HDTV (Rec. 709)?

@RRRR I'm assuming you're not referring to the Cineon converter in AE which just converts log to linear and vice versa. Because other than that, I don't know what you mean.

@shian ah, my bad.. I assumed only premiere had it. Ignore my previous question! :)

(I don't need to get ahead of myself in the project.)

@shian Adobe-> AFX -> Premiere. Natural evolution and simple way to improve your business.

World is moving forward, things evolve, but habits stay. Get a decent PC, a good NVIDIA and CUDA CUDA, enjoy the breeze. Shian, I really think you should give a try since PP and AFX are more and more integrated. More interesting is that PP can do most of what AFX does but in real time, no rendering, and... CS6 is coming out with the IRIDA color correction that may be the next BIG THING and you should be ready to take advantage of it. I push for the PP because for me the use of AFX is a kind of a luxury, as I already said I don't have all that time for rendering, but also I honestly think that if you want make money out of your knowledge, Premiere is the way to go because has been the big thing of 2 years ago and is getting better.

GHrain Killer tutorial is now live.

Keep in mind that this just covers the basics of the node. The next tutorial will cover it in more detail along with how to do Davinci style grading with multiple masks, tracking, secondaries, etc. As well as using GK to smooth things out.

Basically its like pre-requisites in college. You have to understand "101" before you try to learn "102". So rather than dumping a bunch of complex stuff on you all at once. I'm teaching you bits of the whole, so you can have a firm grasp of all these individual concepts, but in the next tutorial we start putting everything together to do some intense stuff.

@Shian thank you for your hard work and look forward watching it

What is the latest news about FCP(X)? I heard they put X on hold...