jcs

Most people online are looking to learn something new. At one point I focussed on resolution and detail, then sound, lighting, story and script writing, legal/IP, editing/post, advertising, etc.
This thread is titled,"The Skin Tone Holy Grail". It implies learning about what are great skin tones and how to achieve them.
While it is reasonable to point out that certain cameras have better or worse skin tones, the spirit of the thread is to learn 1) what are great skin tones and 2) how to achieve them for various cameras and conditions.
Many posts are argumentative for the sake of argument and ego and don't contribute anything significant to learning how to achieve great skin tones.
To be more productive, this forum could use moderation. That would start with no more antagonistc posts by the site owner, who leads by example, and by said site owner to maintain etiquette and politely keep threads on topic when they dissolve into unproductive arguments.

Most people online are looking to learn something new. At one point I focussed on resolution and detail, then sound, lighting, story and script writing, legal/IP, editing/post, advertising, etc.
This thread is titled,"The Skin Tone Holy Grail". It implies learning about what are great skin tones and how to achieve them.
While it is reasonable to point out that certain cameras have better or worse skin tones, the spirit of the thread is to learn 1) what are great skin tones and 2) how to achieve them for various cameras and conditions.
Many posts are argumentative for the sake of argument and ego and don't contribute anything significant to learning how to achieve great skin tones.
To be more productive, this forum could use moderation. That would start with no more antagonistc posts by the site owner, who leads by example, and by said site owner to maintain etiquette and politely keep threads on topic when they dissolve into unproductive arguments.

You asked why we make a big deal of skin tones. We've taken the time told to break it down for you. Now you seem dismiss it as a luxury too rich for your blood. Not sure why you brought the subject up the first place unless it was to tell us why it doesn't matter to you. Of course writing and directing should take a front seat - at any budget. Not a groundbreaking discovery, but you asked a tech question, hence tech answers. People with 1k + cameras usually won't have the budget to consider complex production design but next to writing / directing your one of strongest cards is how you capture a human face. And there are many a cheap camera in the DSLR / Mirrorless market that can capture great skin tones - if you take the time to figure it out. A little applied knowledge is not above anyone's pay grade. So do we care about seeking the "Holy Grail" of flesh tones? If so, ask away. I've gotten great advice on this forum on how to unlock the A7s color profile.

If only one lens for the A7S, the Sony SEL18200 (18-200mm F3.5-6.3) is excellent. Autofocus, IS, complete zoom range for just about every shot. If zooming while shooting, auto ISO works well. F3.5-6.3 isn't an issue as the camera works well at higher ISOs. Here's what the A7S+SEL18200 looks like in low light, with many different light colors, at 1080p60 (slowed to 24p in post). This is an APS-C lens, so not full frame, however this works well for handheld as rolling shutter is reduced.
For full frame and shallower DOF, the Canon 24-105 F4L looks great. Lots of folks report the Commlite adapter at ~$99 works well (or at least as good as MB). Getting a nice prime in the F1.2-2.0 range is also worth it for super shallow DOF. Used Nikon fast prime lens are pretty popular for the price (Nikon to NEX adapters are also low cost). If you want to do much still photography, consider Sony FE primes so you'll get autofocus (e.g. Sony-Zeiss 55mm F1.8).

The S-Log 2 A7s image is better than the 1DC Log image imho, the 1DC sample you posted has clipping, and it's simple and easier for me to correct the A7s image.
 

 
And a bit more punchy

 
The first all you need is levels settings.
 
Rec.709 with just 1 pass of levels

​l
Hey, insightful! Thanks for these thoughts.

After shooting and editing extensively with the 5D3 (H.264 + RAW), Sony FS700, GH4, and A7S, based not only on my personal opinion, but on feedback from actors/models/clients, cameras which produce better skin tones are preferred. I found this out by shooting the same scenes with multiple cameras and reviewing the results with others. Doing research online I found that skin tones were the single most important element for cameras used to make money. Resolution, frame rates, viewfinders, ergonomics, etc., are all very important too, but skin tones are number one. Skin tones affect emotion, and emotion is used to tell a story or sell a product.
What cameras provide the best skin tones? ARRI and Canon. What cameras are used the most professionally? ARRI and Canon. What cameras are used the most in Oscar winning films (last few years)? ARRI. What DSLR was used most in feature films? Canon (5D, 7D, 1D): http://shotonwhat.com/?s=5D. Why did the C100/C300 far outsell/outrent the FS700, even though the FS700 has way more features (and can even look full frame with a SpeedBooster)? C100/C300 produce better skin tones with less effort. 
In the end, it's possible to get similar, sometimes even better (rare/unusual lighting conditions) skin tones from the GH4 and A7S vs. the 5D3, however on average, the 5D3 requires a lot less time and work.
How do we know when skin tones are better, when it's so subjective? Shoot the same scene with multiple cameras then show the results to multiple people for feedback. Some DPs do a ton of testing to figure this out before shooting a feature: http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2013/10/arri-alexa-vs-canon-c500/

Maybe the winner, is in the centre of the picture..The GH4 ..easy to use..great 1080p, 4K inside, APS-C option (speed booster), light weight, weather sealed , battery life, al lot of users..new firmware updates will come and also very very nice..it's only 1500,-  I have seen so much good footage coming from a GH4.. that we do not have to call it or lets say that it doesn't have to be 'video like'! 

​I think your examples clearly shows the Sony advantage. In my opinion there are even better areas for comparison like the strap lug and the front control dial on the Nikon. If you can show this advantage on a small web jpeg, the real world advantages on the original 4k files with proper pp could be significant. Maybe Andrew should make the original clips available for download to demonstrate this. On the other hand I suspect that this discussion is not technical anymore.

Fuzzy, sorry if my posts are coming off pedantic. You're making a case that skin tones aren't that important. I'm providing many facts (which you can verify for yourself) to make the case that skin tone color is indeed the most import element in your thread "the skin tone holy grail". Back when the 5D3 was released the big issue was it was too soft. I showed that with post sharpening it was pretty good (lots of folks disagreed; many felt post-sharpening was invalid and the camera should be sharp straight from the camera). I spent a lot of time looking for a camera that provided better native resolution and went with the FS700 when the SpeedBooster came out. After many projects with feedback from many people, it was clear that people preferred the look of the Canon over the Sony. There were indeed comments on the 5D3 being too soft for some shots, but overall people love the look of the 5D3 over the FS700+SB. The FS700 still provides value with up to 240fps 1080p (ish) slomo.
As I read about lots of different cameras, the recurring pattern for what people love the most is skin tones. We are emotional beings and we evolved color vision, at least in part, to read emotion through skin tone color. Researching the best cameras, I found the same pattern: they produce skin tones which evoke a positive emotional response: "I like it." "I love it!". In narrative and commercials too, color sets the mood, helps tell the story, and conveys emotion at a deep level.
Hi Jonesy- Blackmagic cameras have indeed gotten good reports for skin tones, though I haven't used them. A big part of the filmic look is highlight behavior of the camera/sensor and even more important: lighting for narrative (emotion). I have started paying very careful attention to scenes that look really 'filmic'. Even that ARRI Alexa and Red Dragon can look 'videoish' with bright lighting and resulting harsh highlights. Combine such lighting with an oversharp image and you've got the video look. Notice how often narrative scenes have very little lighting, with the most lighting on the face and eyes. 
The challenge I've had with Sony cameras, especially the FS700, is that after setting proper WB and exposure, even tweaking WB in post (including 3-way), parts of the face can look good/correct, but other parts are too yellow/orange/green/blue and don't look right. So now you have to do secondary color correction for those areas. Time consuming. The final results tend not to look as good as Canon or Panasonic. The A7S is better, but still requires more work vs. the 5D3 or GH4. For video, in my experience Panasonic cameras work pretty well for skin tones, to the point that I didn't worry about them. They just worked. For stills, in my experience Canon looks much better than Panasonic. It wasn't until using Sony cameras and getting feedback from others regarding skin tones that I started looking at skin tones in more detail.
I was curious why so many top productions used ARRI cameras when it was only 2.8K/3.4K max resolution. The result of much reading was that ARRI provides the best color and skin tones. How do we know it's the best?  We look at what people use when cost is not an issue, which cameras were used in the top grossing/award-winning films, etc. This lead to learning more about color and skin tones.
So while many cameras can look great, cameras which look great with the least effort are the most useful and cost effective. It's also why Canon drives Andrew crazy releasing cameras with very limited features which outsell all the other brands with more features. Canon hasn't had to compete on features so much as they compete mostly on (skin tone) color.
 

After shooting and editing extensively with the 5D3 (H.264 + RAW), Sony FS700, GH4, and A7S, based not only on my personal opinion, but on feedback from actors/models/clients, cameras which produce better skin tones are preferred. I found this out by shooting the same scenes with multiple cameras and reviewing the results with others. Doing research online I found that skin tones were the single most important element for cameras used to make money. Resolution, frame rates, viewfinders, ergonomics, etc., are all very important too, but skin tones are number one. Skin tones affect emotion, and emotion is used to tell a story or sell a product.
What cameras provide the best skin tones? ARRI and Canon. What cameras are used the most professionally? ARRI and Canon. What cameras are used the most in Oscar winning films (last few years)? ARRI. What DSLR was used most in feature films? Canon (5D, 7D, 1D): http://shotonwhat.com/?s=5D. Why did the C100/C300 far outsell/outrent the FS700, even though the FS700 has way more features (and can even look full frame with a SpeedBooster)? C100/C300 produce better skin tones with less effort. 
In the end, it's possible to get similar, sometimes even better (rare/unusual lighting conditions) skin tones from the GH4 and A7S vs. the 5D3, however on average, the 5D3 requires a lot less time and work.
How do we know when skin tones are better, when it's so subjective? Shoot the same scene with multiple cameras then show the results to multiple people for feedback. Some DPs do a ton of testing to figure this out before shooting a feature: http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2013/10/arri-alexa-vs-canon-c500/

​If you're trying to compare source files to see differences, and then go on to complain that the 0-255 file has deeper blacks than the 16(32?)-255 file, that doesn't sound like a rational or fair comparison to me. Properly matching your source levels to your output levels isn't grading. And getting your black and white points to match when you are specifically comparing DR and talking about "crushing blacks" would seem to me like the first thing you would want to do.
Within the a7s itself, the cine1 gamma goes to superwhites and the cine2 gamma doesn't. If you didn't know/understand this and just looked at them both to "see differences" and declared "the cine1 highlights are clipped, this needs to be fixed!", or "the cine2 highlights are washed out, this needs to be fixed", then that would be incorrect.
As far as noise goes, there is clearly more noise reduction going on in the 1dc (regardless of what the camera is telling you) than the a7s which appears to be applying none or little. I personally would prefer to apply some chroma NR on the a7s file in post (just like I do to all my RAW photos) and keep some grain-like luma noise and the extra detail, than have the baked in NR and loss of details on the 1dc. And if I wanted to do luma NR on tha a7s file as well, then I have that choice I can make in post with the trade-off in details.
It's starting to sound like a case of post purchase rationalisation for the 1dc at this point.
Having said that, I think we can all agree that colours on the a7s are a pain in the ass!
 

Skin tone to me is the baseline for a camera. I'm always tinting it this way and that or sometimes delivering it as "honest" as possible. If the base is accurate skin tone/color chart, I know can create the most flexible rich signal possible with my camera. When I did extensive tests for a feature last Summer, we were spanning looks from cool/green nights to magic hour golden light, but the mid level / mean look was color balanced skin tone. So we tested the big three (Sony 55, Alexa, Dragon) at a variety of ISO's and contrasts (2:1, 4:1 to 64:1) always with a color chart and the same face. If we could grade the face to look accurate the color chart should be spot on too in an ideal world. Or you end up buying a lot of time in post windowing backgrounds and faces. The F55 was the worst at that test. If we nailed the face, the color chart was way off. It'd be cheaper to rent but offset by extra time in grading. Dragon was leaps better, just ever so slightly green bias and Alexa was spot on. 

As per the thread jcs linked to, I applied the levels fix to the a7s portion of the image. I also pushed the a7s white balance closer to that of the 1dc. The 1dc image remains untouched. The comparison would be better if the levels fix was applied to the prores and the WB applied in camera, but even just working with the jpg I think the a7s is the better image (more detail, better DR, less banding). Colours could be better but I'm guessing a7s was using s-gamut as opposed to cinema or pro colour.
Black level on the 1dc image seems to be 32(?)
The apperance of noise on the a7s image is reduced somewhat after the levels and WB fixes. And regarding noise, a comment from the same thread jcs linked:

​Thanks again JCS,
I will give it a good thought..
Already wish you a happy new year .

Hitfabryk- the GH4 makes an excellent 4K studio camera! The Natural picture profile is a great place to start. Cine-D and -V also have their uses.
Max- I find it helpful when starting a new project to try out all the cameras to see how they perform for the conditions. It's not just the lighting, but also the color of light reflected from the environment- "the radiance map" (especially important for green/blue screen work). Try all the picture profiles with the A7S- the results may surprise you.
The A7S is a decent stills camera (Canon 50mm F1.4, Metabones NEX to EF IV, Sony RAW, processed with ACR):

And with a little extra work with profiles for video (based on the conditions- there isn't one profile for everything), the A7S looks pretty good. The 5D3 with Neutral/Faithful and GH4 with Natural profiles work pretty well in many conditions (PP6 comes closest with the A7S). If the 5D4 gets 4K and 60p (at least for full-res 1080p), we'll have a competitive, solid all-around still/video camera (not having autofocus for Canon lenses on the A7S is challenging).

​No no, I should apologize, but honestly in this context "pedantic" is not necessarily a pejorative.  Specializing deeply in certain skills is part of the trade as a DP.  Knowing the intricacies is important.  I get that.  As I say, I'm a guy that just does corporate videos mostly.  I don't have a body of work that needs such finesse with color, so I'm ignorant about the heavy details...but I'm not sure if I want to actually worry too much about it, if that's understandable.
My sensibilities are elsewhere.  As you can see from my writing above, I'm sort of content that my stuff is good enough (for better or worse).
Thanks for offering your perspective.  It's enlightening.

It's like Jonesy said, once you shoot RAW (like BM), it makes you fall in love with a certain look.  At least me.  Again, Fuzzy, I never said the color was bad with my GM1, for example.  Again, the problem I had, and which I believe others have had is You do some RAW shooting, love it, then try to get that flat look in 8-bit, and end up ruining your colors, by using data to capture DR (at the expense of color depth), which is noticeable when you shoot faces because we're biologically sensitive to complexion.  The great thing about the GX7 and GM1 is they don't have Cine-D   
You're playing devil's advocate a bit here   I didn't say that we have a biological need to see faces with a certain color / skin-tone.  Many films have a look that are not "natural" but the "fake" colors achieve an emotional effect.  What I said is that in a setting where the viewer expects the person to look a certain way they are sensitive to colors that are off.  That's why JCS explained how he could get background colors one way but they ruined the skin tones, or the other way around.  Skin tone is about context.  If you're shooting everything with a GX7 no one is going to notice the skin tones.  Consistency always works.  However, if you were to mix that footage with BM footage, say, there's a good chance you would prefer the RAW but wouldn't be able to get the GX7 to match it.  You would be able to get the RAW to match the GX7, but then you'd lose what you liked in the image in the first place.  AGAIN, if the viewer doesn't know better, no harm no foul!  

Yes, FuzzyNormal, I wouldn't say ever had a "problem" with skin tones until I shot some RAW with a Canon 50D.  That is, most video had a "video" look which I felt I was stuck with.  But RAW changed everything for me.  Then I went to an EOS-M, then a BMPCC and feel that both camera deliver great looks.  I never get tired of RAW (just the workflow). Anyway, I've always wanted the nice crisp image, small file sizes, and video ergonomics of Panasonic cameras.  What happened is that I wanted the high dynamic range, flat look, of my BMPCC with the GH4.  So I used Cine-D and dialed down the contrast and changed the hue TOO MUCH.  What I didn't realize is that the low-contrast look I was getting was AT THE EXPENSE of color, which meant the skin tones went to crap.  So I can understand how this problem seems silly to you Fuzzy because you don't shoot RAW, far as I know, and you haven't pushed the GH4 too far as I did (and should have known better).  The good thing for me, is that it has awaken me to much of the stuff JCS has been writing about for a long time here.  I agree with him, people are biologically sensitive to good skin tone.  If you're doing a very busy video, with many cuts, and high contrast, etc., you don't notice.  But if you're going for a natural look it ain't easy.  If you take a family member, and sit them down for an "interview" where the person has to look at their face for minutes on end I think you'll go through the same thing as other people--the image may not do justice to the person in front of you.

​When James first got the Epic Dragon he posted a video still from the Epic (cant remember if he cropped or scaled the 6k down) and his 1Dc of the same scene.  He was very impressed by how close 1DC compared if I recall. 
 But, with variable compression ratios of your choosing + supposed16bit raw + film log+ high frame rates+ 6k on down + anamorphic modes I would take it for the $$$.  Anyone want to trade an Epic (or Scarlet Dragon) for my 1DC and some cash ?
 

Stock Cine-D can work in some situations (his point is don't use Cine-D with lots of tweaks). I'm currently shooting for in-camera so there's less work (and surprises) in post. I do this by testing profiles and settings with the camera hooked up to a full-sized HDTV (46" and larger).

On the contrary, the C500 and 1DC are the best-specced cameras Canon offers, and the least successful.​
For a "professional" workflow, the smallest file sizes win out over 6k and such. Major network shows shot on the Alexa go with prores 422 hq than 444 because the savings in storage trump the extra image quality!
For enthusiasts the Panasonic and Sony cameras are fine, but they do make compromises. The 1DC seems like a good deal now if you're a dSLR-style shooter. Canon dSLRs still have the best color.

​well... you know my problem...
always looking for that little b-cam that can go seamlessly with an alexa, epic or f65...
just a couple of frames here, a second there, uncomplicated and reasonably small, one step below an extra epic body from the rental house.
by uncomplicated i mean that it should not be a nightmare to expose, with 500 different approaches for every setup, millions of menus to go through, and always haunted by that erie feeling that you forgot to set something way down in the menu jungle.
i don`t want to spend every lunch break with the dit :-)
shoots are stress and i have a million other things to care about, besides camera set ups, codecs, etc.
on the last shoots the a7s worked quite well on car interiors etc.
but looking at the setup now with the shogun attached this thing became quite a beast. and the hdmi cable that sticks out 10cm is an accident waiting to happen, especially when you`re not sitting under a tree doing a time lapse of a mushroom.
as you can imagine, my cnc is already spinning up for the shogun cage/armour, it needs a proper hdmi safety and is much too weak for a tough shoot. will email you pictures...
so for me a used 1dc is quite an attractive option, could use my 058w as a finder, not to mention the tons of L glass that sit on my shelf.
but before i make that decision it would be good to know if it is only marginally better or a real advantage over the a7s.
and andrew, one more thing, can`t you do a post about hdmi cables? i`ve been searching my ass off for decent ones, even bought the atomos cables (that don`t fit into the a7s cable safety, nor the movcam cage!) plus i never seem to find cables that have the right angle etc.. for the shogun for example the best cable for me would come with a 90 degree angle to the right and then go down directly to the camera.
 
best,
 
wondo

That's about all of "Gone Girl" I want to see   I'm sure it's good, but the older I get the more I'd rather watch Fred Astaire dance and make corny jokes.  
Some of the color work I see in films is great.  But it's like zoom lenses in the 70s, many are overdoing it.  I feel the same way for steadicams and slider shooting, etc.  I just watched "Mozart in the Jungle."  I loved it, nice color work, a few mistakes here and there, but otherwise really created a good Carnegie Hall mood, both there and in the apartments.  Of course, the show is very well written, directed, acted, edited, etc.  So I probably would have enjoyed it shot on an iPhone.  
I was thinking more about what Cinegain was saying.  I think I can answer more of what my problem is.  When I go to shoot people, I want to start with a shot where they look natural--in whatever light.  I want to do it quickly and confidently.  That's why I thought, no matter how bad, the test footage shows me in that situation.  I'm setting up a camera, shooting me saying something, and then going to the editor.  As many pointed out, the a6000 was washed out. Obviously, my techniques need work. I found that the more I went to camera defaults the better I was.  The same with the GH4.  Anyway, that's what I'm after, good natural looks even BEFORE I think about mood.
I believe many have my problem because many watch the "quick and dirty" pieces I post on Vimeo.  It's closer to what they deal with too.  I have more footage to post later.  Thanks for your images JCS, now that I understand what you're saying I'm ALL EYES!
 

It may be a pain in the neck, but the results are worth it. Good choice. Nothing in the price range looks better in my opinion.  Everyone loves to bash canon, but when its all over and done, they look really, really good. 
And, for me, that's what it's all about.  Just wish it had good HFR.