SRV1981

3 hours ago, kye said:

Yep!

Hey - you should look into colour grading! 🙂 

Uhhh I know! Maybe this summer when I have more time! The advent of internal LUTs I think will help me on that journey. Seeing what folks have done with Dehancer has been motivating as well. 

8 hours ago, kye said:

Blaine Westropp is also killing it recently.

Ive seen him make fx3 and c70 look like Arri

28 minutes ago, kye said:

Welcome to the party!

Your Luc Forsyth video is a perfect complement to this!

38 minutes ago, kye said:

I saw that one in my feed but haven't watched it yet.  I highly recommend watching the YT film-makers that actually do real work.  They have a balanced perspective and speak from experience.  

Like Luc Forsyth, who has shot major network TV shows:

Finding good people on YT is quite challenging now, because they tend to just use their own names and the good people aren't talking about brands etc all the time so finding them can be a challenge.

Agreed, great share. Now this video is just a single training session and not a narrative but only shot on the a6700 and 18-105 f4. Looks aesthetically pretty good. 
 

this guy is amazing. Love his process and personality. He also shot a full feature film. 

great rant.  Loved every second of this. 

11 hours ago, kye said:

Only you can know this, because what you love will be different to what anyone else loves.

Haha I’d imagine some folks who own Sonys also love canon skintones. I’ll do some digging on the interwebs if nobody here has don’t it. 

51 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

That makes total sense.  One would expect a professional colorist to groan a bit if handed 8-bit log footage vs 10-bit log (or 12-bit raw).  I'd imagine that most want the most flexible image to work with when possible - there's a reason that Hollywood tends to shoot most stuff on Arri and it's not ease of use or portability. 

Yea and to clarify they’re referring to 10-bit cameras mostly. They do have preferences of canon Sony etc. 

7 hours ago, kye said:

If you find a single video and you like it

Agree! Been watching hours of footage and notice a personal bias toward canon images - and it seems to be the way they render color and skin regardless of user - it’s over hours of footage. 

7 hours ago, kye said:

the internet is very very much like an infinite group of monkeys with typewriters!

That’s us! 

7 hours ago, kye said:

YOU will get with it

Yes I get this, after feeling a little dejected from the original question and response I checked the subreddit “colorists” and there’s tons of threads and comments noting that they prefer to receive images from some cameras and brands over others. 
 

it seems to come down to difficulty - if you have the same face, scene, lighting etc and 5 different cameras or brands - these colorists had noted that to get the desirable look was much easier than others and frustrating and painstaking on others.  Which is why I felt it difficult to accept notions of makeup or learn color grading. The tools themselves can aid in that journey. 
 

I’ve learned through this that the way canon renders color, specifically skin, is my favorite look. That doesn’t mean I’ll go run out to grab an r5 or r8 - the feature set is far inferior to an a7s3 or a7iv, I think. 

I was curious what more knowledgeable folks preferred as their starting point tool. Do you use a gx85 for your travel and fs7 for work? Or is it an r5 for travel and fx6 for work, etc? That’s all I was hoping to discuss here and then follow with - “why did you choose that tool”. 
 

sometimes we bring our own gripes and biases to a question and don’t answer the quesirtin. 
 

that said, now my next question is can you achieve the same appeal of color on mid-level Sony bodies as you can on the canons that produce color I love. And if so, how easy is it to do? 
 

7 hours ago, kye said:

It's hard to tell, but it looks like it might even be 1/2

Great video - saw this years back I believe. That said. I loved the 1/8 look for general purpose filming but anything more was very stylized for my taste. 

46 minutes ago, John Matthews said:

Also, I'm fairly sure that's Morgan Freeman doing the voiceover for the trailer.

He’s the only man who doesn’t hate the sound of his own voice 😉 

13 hours ago, kye said:

The image is too diffused and too cream and pastel green/brown for me

I tend to agree. I associate green/brown with Sony and you’re saying that more magenta (canon?) images can be had in Sony? Simple correction in camera white balance? Or only in post? 

13 hours ago, kye said:

Riza uses a huge amount of diffusion so everything looks hazy.

Maybe a 1/4 black mist? 1/8 may be better? Makes it look less sharp

13 hours ago, kye said:

People of this age are having climate anxiety in a big way, so it's a real thing in their world.

maybe - I fear existential crisis but like c70 colors lol. 

what about this image ? Fan or no?

To what degree is Alexa’s image desired due to its color rendition versus its unbelievable dynamic range? When I see LUTs that attempt to emulate Arri, I like the balance of highlight and shadows but I don’t care for skintones. Again, more green than my brain is biased to. 

44 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

Canon C line is that the skin often has a bit more separation from other colors

That’s a better way of saying it. 
 

44 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

Panasonic S-series as SOOC it tends to exaggerate yellows.

Do you remove it internally or in post production? 

10 minutes ago, kye said:

You're still not getting it.

I think you don’t get it or feel the original query is beneath your masterclass expertise - no need to comment. Ever. 

48 minutes ago, kye said:

Instantly, you can have whatever look you want, SOOC.

I’ll have to find the examples I’ve seen where even with the same LUT, say Phantom - the cameras produce different images. You could probably edit in post to get them nearly identical unless you a/b but the question, for me is what can take the least time. I’m realizing Canon and Lumix are my answers for this discussion.  
 

50 minutes ago, kye said:

GX85

Will check this too! Thanks 

50 minutes ago, kye said:

C300mk2

1000% this. If I could get this image in a smaller body I’d do it in a heartbeat. 

51 minutes ago, kye said:

Alexas also tend to go green.

Above my pay grade but I’d say some creators still keep some of that green in and I dislike it compared to movies or shows that accentuate pinks and magentas. Just my preference for watching cinema and producing 

Do you think you prefer the red/magenta bias of images ? I ask because canon and Panasonic seem to have that 

1 minute ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

The budget is just for the body and not for the body+glass?
1) Used GFX 100S - the video is good enough for vacation and the stills are incredible
2a) C70 - looks nice SOOC, built-in ND's, nearly the perfect camera for a fast turn-around
2b) GFX 100 II (Love mine)
3a) C70 - as before and the raw from it is flexible enough for anything I do
3b) Used Monstro 8K VV - I haven't actually shot with one, but they seem pretty nice and I sometimes consider doing some trade-in toward one - used models are now about 6k for the brain on reputable used sites

C70 is a dream image for me! I’ll check GFX.  I never investigated those 

3 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

SOOC excludes log profiles, for one thing.

Many cameras have baked in LUTs. 

4 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

Nikon Z6 is solid

I’d scoop a Nikon in z6 size with z8 sensor! 

4 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

Are you including lenses in your budget?

I’m not buying anything lol

5 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

But it's probably more useful and interesting to narrow the parameters a bit.

I think this is the best critique of my post. It’s wild how heated anonymous strangers can get lol. 
 

so let’s say scenario wise:

1. you’re vacationing with your significant other and want to get as close to “film” look with minimal effort. What camera are you taking?

a. Budget $4k for a body 

2. you have a mini doc for run and gun - turn around time is short. What camera brings you closest to the image you like without much grading? 
 

a. Budget $4k for body

b. Budget $10k for body 

3. you have time and want to shoot a big doc or narrative - time isn’t an issue, what camera do you take - 

a  budget - $5k

b  budget - $10k

again thanks for asking an awesome clarifying question! 🙋‍♂️ 

In these images there seems to be the possibility of getting nearly identical color, though I'm not versed in grading - but it seems that these 4 different comparisons show SOOC images to be different enough for many to have a preference.  Again, that was the original question:  what camera do you choose when you don't want to grade much and get close to your preferred look with minimal effort.

Some of the banter here has pushed me, personally, to the notion that I prefer the look of Canon images given the same lighting situation over Sony but the compact Sony bodies, lens options, etc. make them a better buy for the SOOC-esque scenario.  May have to wait to see what Canon announces in May.

Wrapping up - just heard someone say the C70 looks great even with not the best lighting but the R5 does not.  I also prefer the look of Red cameras from what i've seen than much of the Arri (skin tones in particular).

1 hour ago, kye said:

The BMPCC 4K.

this shows a nice contrast to a popular camera - fx3. I agree the bmpcc4k does look more pleasing, overall. My eye is drawn toward that side of the screen. 

23 minutes ago, kye said:

The BMPCC 4K.

That’s solid! What’s your thoughts on the original BMPCC ?

2 hours ago, PPNS said:

you realise that this is contradictory, right? in those situations people shoot with amiras,fs7s/fx6/9s, or even the big bulky ENG cams with a r709 profile and just kinda let it go that it looks kinda shitty. that's part of the trade off if you shoot in these conditions/that kind of turnaround. 

while it would probably look a bit different, it would also not look very desirable if you were to shoot that exact shot with an amira. sensors aren't magic, and even the best don't handle random street lights at night very well. 

You do realize technology matters? You do realize different camera produce differences in image that are pleasing to some and not others? Do you realize the original thread is about what camera you prefer to get the closest to your goal image with minimal work? Are you aware 99% of responses didn’t address that? Should I wear makeup?

I invite you to check the older thread I bumped of discussions that don’t seem to full agree with your stance by folks more knowledgeable than myself.  But to assume the camera doesn’t matter as I see in your long appeals, then why not shoot all movies on iPhones with Apple ProRes log?

I also love some movies and shows despite not liking their skintones or color FYI

19 minutes ago, kye said:

This is a fundamental split in the camera communities - those who like the look of cinema and those that like the look of video.

Yes, the video that @mercer posted was low-contrast / desaturated / greenish.  That's the look.  It's also the look of a great many feature films and high budget TV shows.

Notice the similar colour palette?  This one even includes it 🙂 

Some consider it THE look of cinema.

You might be thinking that you're interested in a neutral look because you aren't making action / thriller / horror movies, and that's fair, so where is the look with the natural skin tones?

To that, I ask, which look with natural skin tones are you talking about?

But, you meant a neutral look!  Sorry.

You must mean an image that has only been technically converted to a correct image...  like these.

 

But these don't look the same either  ...and yet they are shot with neutral lighting by professionals and even have test charts in them to ensure that the image is correctly exposed and balanced etc - these are literally test images!  If these images don't look the same then how the hell can any image be correct?

This is what I'm saying.     There is no neutral image.

The lighting angle changes the look.

The lighting ratio impacts the look.

Time of day impacts the look.

High key vs low key.

Just kidding!

Lenses impact the look.

Filters etc etc.

This is why I emphasise working in post.

Take the above image for example.  A little work in post, and voila - now you have a "more accurate" match!

Or what if you over exposed your camera drastically?  No problem if you know what to do in post..

(Source: https://cinematography.net/alexa-over/alexa-skin-over.html)

This is why trying to get the look you want by only looking at the camera and ignoring the other aspects, when they can completely override the differences between cameras is misguided.

Hell, with a simple transform you can turn one capable camera into another anyway:

(credit: Miguel Santana ILM)

I truly do understand the temptation of the camera body.  It has the most buttons, it's the thing that everything connects to, it's the complicated thing that everyone talks about, it costs lots of money etc.  They're also super cool, absolutely.

But they're not the defining object when creating the look, even if you literally buy one with a lens attached and only shoot in a 709 profile, then you're still shooting things that look different based on the lighting and composition and how you expose etc etc.

But what if you just want to shoot what is there and have it look nice.  Absolutely.  This is literally what I do.  I shoot travel with my GX85 and mostly a single lens, and it only shoots in rec709 profiles.

However, because of all the above factors, the footage will vary from shot to shot.  So in order to make it more uniform in the edit I learned to colour grade.  Let alone the absolutely horrific lighting that is around...  

Take this image I've shared previously:

Look at the sleeve of the jumper - it is a single colour - the lights are just very low-cost LEDs and although they looked white in person they are very different hues to the cameras eye.  Notice how that yellow is bleeding into his hand near his wrist and also into the lower part of the ladies face?

If you want good skin-tones - oh boy you better hope that you get good lighting!  Otherwise, colour grading is there to fix what your camera did, rather than ruin it.  Getting a neutral 709 video-style look with lighting like this would require a huge amount of work in post.

That's why these "which camera to buy to get good skin tones" always have a silent assumption before the question that say "assuming the world doesn't exist or if it did exist then assume it's perfect", which obviously isn't a very useful assumption.

Clearly great points. But I think it’s still missing the mark, given that the user in my scenario wants a quick turn around in many lighting conditions outside of our control what sensors currently produce an image you love with minimal effort. 
 

the gx85 image is lovely but also the kids skin looks deathly anemic. Another sensor and processor would.l render that scene differently.  That’s the conversation