exomonkeyman

That's the reason people make tests. First stick to rules, then go wild. First WB manually, then try going over/under. Nobody makes art with a preset.

A lot of this is in the color grade. They'll push the mids and mid/lows to teal/blue. Then add a qualifier on the actors skin to bring up orange/warm saturation. Another good way to shoot this is to use Tungsten lighting and add one daylight practical source in the background to give a pop of color contrast.
Notice that the lighting on the right is overall warm. In the background is a daylight or blue practical. In post they push everything toward a cool blue/green except Mark Wahlberg's skin.
 
 

No probs man:)  Be aware that what Allister Chapman says might not be what others believe is best for certain scenes.  - so often s-log might be very viable for certain low light scenes where you need the huge dynamic range advantage in highlight detail.  for instance just after sunset, shooting towards the sun.   for the scene in your images you;re dedicating a lot of dr to the strret lights - which will be blown out even if you had 20 stops of dr.

it's simply a artifact when the sensor is pushed too far.  Mine does this.  the effect only really shows where the dynamic range in the shot is beyond what it;s capable of handling - pulling the shadows down will remove this.  the difference between the black sky and a street lamp is almost an infinity number to stops difference.  a bounce board for your talent or a small led source on your camera will lift the talent and allow you to expose slightly less then the light sources wont cause this.  it's a bit like the vertical flares often seen on 1990's dv cameras when they flare.  
if you really wanna hide this artifact..  shoot anamorphic and the flares will hide it:)
 
PS.  S-Log isnlt the best profile for this type of scene.  you;re wasting a lot of the dynamic range that s-log provides.  try one of the cine profiles.  one of them (I think cine 4) has a better response curve for night scenes.
 

This is a good post. Your issues are similar to my field documentary group. We have tried many different camera types, various rigs etc.  I loved my Canon 5D Mark III and Zacuto EVF  Pro, but it was too slow to assemble and too fragile. As you well described, in fast-paced field environment, just 3-4 extra minutes is a long time. Then every time we changed sites it (a) Had to be torn down and packed, or (b) Balanced on a car seat or get somebody to hold it.
I now use an A7RII, Zacuto Marauder mini-rig, and Rode VideoMic Pro on the hot shoe: http://store.zacuto.com/marauder/ I can unpack it and be shooting in about 60 sec. We also use the Panasonic AG-DVX200, usually on a monopod. It is likewise very fast to set up: http://pro-av.panasonic.net/en/dvx4k/
For really fast run-and-gun, we just accept on-camera shotguns. If we have a few more seconds (e.g, a 30 sec stand-up interview) we use a clip-on Bluetooth wireless mic which is faster than our Sennheiser G3 lavs. The BT mic is available from Canon as the WM-V1: http://amzn.com/B004JNXDH6 or Sony as the ECMAW4: http://amzn.com/B00JWU6WWO
If we have more time we'll use the Sennheiser lavs, or boom-mounted Rode NTG-2/3, etc. However I generally don't like boom-mounted shotguns on fast-paced field shoots as they require a separate trained operator, it's more stuff to set up, and another thing sticking in the subject's face which inhibits their spontaneity.

Ah, my type of shooting. My rig is still in the process. The NX1 is a beast for documentary (with its ois kit lens). But I do prefer having a pistol grip gimble stabilizer with it, just in case. 
- Samsung NX1 (with kit lens or 45mm)
- Pistol grip stabilizer
- Rode VideoMic Pro
- Currently use a rented Sennheiser G3 with Zoom H6, but plan to switch to JuicedLink Little Darling (which acts as a recorder in itself with bracketed audio recordings) when it is released. 

Hey dude, I shoot a lot of the same stuff as you. Run-and-gun, documentary style, and I totally feel your pain. Since you have such little time to set up, I can't recommend the Rode VideoMic Pro enough. It's super lightweight and has a +20db switch on the back, allowing you to turn the recording level in the camera way down and let the microphone do all the work. This gives you much cleaner audio by removing the "hiss" that is caused by the camera's preamp. No, it's not the same as clipping a mic onto someone and using an external recorder, but it's really high quality audio with a lot less moving pieces to worry about and a super quick setup/breakdown, plus you don't have to waste time syncing the audio in post. 

How's the juiced link work? Does it really help to get useable audio?

Definitely. Unless the build in camera amp gain cannot be turned completely off that is. 

I have been using the VideoMic pro and I know it will never replace external audio, but with +20db switch on... It's not bad for a lot of things. Especially if you can get an up close take. 

Yes, much better than any in camera solution obviously. As fuzzy writes you need to be close enough though, otherwise Sennheiser g3 lavalier is the way to go. I also have the Sony PCM-D100 which is probably better than the H1. The juiced link solution is not much worse than the Sony.

I do run n gun a lot.  Not sure what your situation is, but I'm typically covering 1 subject.  As such, I put a wireless mic on him/her and then the receiver on my camera.  
Lately it's a EM5II with the battery grip adapter.  Good set up in that I can monitor the audio signal and the whole "rig" is small.  Also:  Simple.  No breakdown.  No set up.  No tripod.  I just carry my camera with me and shoot.
Shotguns are fine and all, but they need to be be near the subject to be effective.  Otherwise it's just an expensive mic that's not located properly for capturing clean audio.  If it's a necessity to go with a shotgun, (sometimes the situation demands it) I get an audio operator to boom pole it.  
For the most part I'll pick up group conversation audio well enough from the lav the subject is wearing.  On occasion I've run two wireless mics and I just let it record outboard and carry that pack in my camera satchel. 

The do-everything rig is usually kind of overkill, especially sticking a mic on top of everything else.
I opted for a really solid rails & baseplate setup (fore and aft legs between the tripod and camera plates) with a Manfrotto style release (since their release plate is widely available, it's on all my stuff from the rig to the tip of my crane). I have a rail clamp that holds the HDMI cable and camera-in (1/8), just 6" female-ended cables; that way I have a full-size HDMI out. With the NX1, I don't use the loupe, the EVF is fantastic on that thing. Sometimes have a follow focus, sometimes not. Handheld I keep the FF knob near a front handle when possible.
With my Nikon, I have the Kamerar loupe which uses the Manrotto baseplate (so that's the camera baseplate) and the loupe pops on and off. I use front handles and shoulder mount that go on the rails, the fronts are wide enough that the whole thing can go on an off the tripod in seconds. I can attach the audio recorder (DR 60D) to the setup when there's no shoulder mount; I don't ever stick a mic on the camera - if I need audio for handheld, the DR goes in a waist pack for the boom op and I get a camera out cable if we can stay close. If not, the internal mic is good for synch. I have a manfrotto mount on my steadicam, so the cables come out of the jacks, the camera comes off the rails, and onto the steadicam. I keep it balanced for my wide zoom. Both the Nikon and the NX1 have audio I can use for editing if they're fed a preamped line source from the DR and if I get all the gain setup properly. The DR has a good limiter and also records a minus-6 track, and for some edits I'll need to either pop in a bit of the minus-6 for spikes, or just use the audio from the DR.
I'll stick a monitor on the hot shoe if I'm on sticks. It's all pretty fast to go from handheld to sticks to steadicam, just seconds. But I don't mess around with on-camera mics and can't think of a gig where they wouldn't understand a couple hundred bucks for a boom op (I just trained a musician/friend who has good ears and a good brain to boom, he likes the extra cash). If you're recording audio, it might as well be something you can use in the edit. For synch audio, if you want to skip the camera mic, get a cheap little lav mic with an in-the-case battery, and chop the cable down to a foot or so, tape it to the front of one rail... or something.
There's plenty of times I can have a recorder mounted to a boom stand with a mafer or something, and have a mic ready to place and aim to grab quick interviews.

This is my run-n-gun toy...

 

Daisy chain sounds quite doable. I've seen people doing this, however I'm not sure how much the latency between the monitors would be. Ideally if the monitor is good enough you shouldn't notice any significant delay.

this is my best tip too. Learning to do secondary colour correction on skin is one of he best things you can do, then you can push the skin tones where you want them. I frequently rescue and improve shots like this.
of course you need to start with well exposed and white balanced skin in the first place.
if you're editing in Premiere you can use the three-way colour corrector to do secondary correction without having to get into Resolve or Speedgrade. Find a video tutorial and give it a go.

Resolve,Colorista,Speedgrade all have ability to isolate/key/punch skin tone to where you want it to be. If you going in with a heavy orange and teal grade in mind, maybe try to avoid reds and oranges in wardrobe and props where possible. If you can load a LUT onto your camera monitor...great, it will show you the ballpark of what a stylised grade will give you as you shoot. For exterior/overcast weather, you could favor a warmer colour balance to bring skin looking less washed out. If your actor is very pale, that is something you can't do too much about - without helping with makeup.

Try white balancing with warm cards?
http://www.warmcards.com/WC1.html

Warmer white balance and some soft lighting is probably a good place to start. What kind of conditions are you shooting in? 

You can also use davinci resolve or adobe speedgrade (and probably some other software that I don't know about) and pick out the particular hues of skin in footage and adjust them to your desire

Emulation can be a good thing when one is learning.  I've created this color cast many times.
But I'm willing to wager that this era in Hollywood film making is going to be chastised as the time when colorists hooked onto this teal/orange nonsense --and it is going to look ridiculous and very dated to "future" eyeballs.  You know how when you watch an 80's movie and you pick up the visual cues that let you know it's an 80's movie?  The 'aughts and 21st century teens are going to have a very obvious aesthetic too.    
If you want something you create to be more timeless, I'd suggest looking at films of the 70's as a guidance; much more basic back then.
Essentially, I'm saying don't think you gotta do this just because it's what you're seeing most of the time.

Honestly I think it is to do with people's actual skin tones.  Most people here are very pale, especially during the winter. I mean especially compared to Clooney who has a year round tan. 

For the UK, you can add filters in your lights to have a diffuse, gold orange look (see https://youtu.be/7l6FjphZXsk?t=288 ). You can also use the same filter indoors
For Interstellar, this is good color correction plus a little bit of subtle make-up.

Yes, normal: the noise reduction takes more CPU/battery.