SRV1981

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 

eva1 looks way better here to my eye. Any thought why that is? Can that look be had in a mirrorless smaller body camera ?

6 hours ago, mercer said:

Both of those cameras are great, you should get one. What are you shooting with now?

iPhone 14 Pro and Ricoh GRIIIx. Not much currently would motivate me into a system. The c70 and mage would be perfect but the body is way too large for what I’d want. But it’s interesting to see that different companies focus on different aspects of image - the c70 looks closer to the desirable images of top cinema cameras to my eyes. Something many have said who work in the industry is that the Sony mirrorless has great tech but look “clinical.”  Although I’ve seen some folks create lovely images with them - but the work to get there is much more than on cinema cameras etc. a few colorists on Reddit’s sub noted that canon was a bit easier to work with but Sony came to them looking pretty ugly and took more time - digital was the word they used. 

19 minutes ago, mercer said:

I'm sure I posted it back then too. ML Raw is easy on the 5D3 due to dual card slots and its stability.

I'm sure the FX3 and R5C could get close... minus the 14bit color... but they're $3500 cameras and I already own the 5D3. 

Yes good points. 
 

this in a small body would be amazing:

picked c70 every time they had the person shown. I guess I like those tones. Does anyone agree?

1 hour ago, mercer said:

And I'd be remiss if I didn't post this video from a British filmmaker named Paul Cook. It was the video that made me buy my 5D3 and install ML Raw on it and never look back. After 7 years, I'm still chasing what he was able to capture in an afternoon...

 

I remember this ! it was posted here years ago! I remember trying ML and was blown away how good it looked but how hard it was to use. I think the fx3/r5c can give those looks now. 

3 hours ago, mercer said:

This first round of films, from Kendy Ty and his t2i,

The first few scenes on the train felt like a movie. Loved it! In another thread I bumped from 2015 where folks discussed cameras and color, as is my goal, some commented that as brands have moved to mirrorless they’re chasing resolution and in doing so neglecting color and overall image. Something to the effect that chasing greens versus other colors, has had a negative impact on the way color is rendered and that’s 9 years ago. Worth a review that thread. 
 

I originally curious about modern cameras that produce that movie look in the first video without lighting makeup etc. the skin tones and overall look felt less digital and more movie like. That’s what I was getting at with what brands are trying to achieve that ? What models most of us can purchase today gets us to that. 

22 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

And the utter lack of it has me admiring Ripley on Netflix right now.

I’m partly thinking the Amalfi coast should be in colour, but the rest is definitely working for me as a B&W production.

Of course it would look shite if the coastal stuff was colour whilst the rest was B&W but chapeau on this 8 parter, I think it’s great.

Sorry it’s not a Joker II comment 😛

Will have to check it out!

Very interesting dialogue, glad i found this!

Instead, people respond to posts that weren't written and proselytize and talk down.  It's pretty pathetic.   

On 4/14/2024 at 3:00 PM, SRV1981 said:

Is it fair to say some cameras produce normative or more pleasing color to most but if using log, you can get similar color/image from most cameras equally?  
 

1. if you wanted a personal camera with fast turn around what brands are you usually happy with color wise?

 

2. when deciding for more professional or bigger projects, how do you decide what system/log system to get?

 

seems canon and then Fuji reign when SOOC is discussed and it’s more nuanced for the latter.

Literally a non-controversial, non-trolling, basic question that you can partake in politely or not. 

14 minutes ago, ghostwind said:

Your questions have already been answered here. You're simply just trolling at this point, and not very well at that. Not sure what exactly is is you ARE looking for..

Not really, I've asked basic questions for discussion purposes but the elitism and condescension as your post demonstrates is strong here - i'd rather just find a place with more amateur enthusiasts rather than certain folks who think highly of themselves