SRV1981

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

Just now, Tim Sewell said:

Actually unreservedly loved it. I'm finding that I'm gradually getting further and further away from preferring verite/realistic looks and getting into the wilder end of things!

Same! The color really brought us into a different/alternate universe!

1 hour ago, kye said:

enough of this blasphemous film-making talk - we should go back to talking about camera colour profiles like film-making doesn't exist!

I just realized - I did come to the wrong forum. I just assumed this was a wider community than what actually is. Many view themselves as filmmakers. I do not, I’m sure there’s other forums/places to chat just about equipment etc and not ruffle weathers of those who see themselves as “filmmakers”. 

3 hours ago, Tim Sewell said:

I watched this yesterday and it inspired me to watch the first film (only 5 years late!). It's unusual to see Waqas quite so excited about something but it was an excellent view into the art, rather than the technique, in top-end colour grading.

Agreed he was really animated and passionate thought it was a cool breakdown of the trailer.  What was your take on the first film? 

45 minutes ago, kye said:

...and?

Haha some of you remind me of guys in HS who hated jocks but then grew up to find your own niche and identity and became the jocks. 

interesting tests

1 hour ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

If you're looking for SOOC color, you probably want a decent amount of SOOC noise reduction.

If you're working on a project which will have reasonable post-production work done, you want the least (or no) noise reduction in camera.  Tools like the denoiser in Resolve, Neat Video, and Topaz Video AI give a better result as well as giving you a lot more control of the trade-offs of noise vs lost details and plastic/wax skin.

How would you categorize some of the main cameras discussed here ?

7 minutes ago, ac6000cw said:

The highest DR curves look to be C-Log2, S-Log3 and V-Log - but of course they do that by being flatter in the important mid-range area i.e. fewer levels per EV, increasing the chance of banding if pushed too far in post. Note this chart is -10 to +10 EV vs. IRE 0 to 110%, the other two are -8 to +8 EV vs. 10-bit digital code values.

I read that clog2 has slightly more DR than clog3 but that in clog2 the NR is turned down/off and the shadows are way noisier than clog3.  How do you guys see that trade-off?  worth it? or would you have rather reduce noise in post.

2 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

I will be very grateful when og poster will feel inspired enough to come to a decision of buying that personal camera for video or photo/video after a year long of searching and wondering.

you must be fun at parties 😉 - i'm not purchasing anything i enjoy discussing tech - i also play guitar and have been in bands - i enjoy discussing amp modeling but am not purchasing it.  Don't get so butt hurt 😉

2 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

Shot at 800 Iso, at around T2 and T2.8.

Looks good! Keep at it, man!

2 hours ago, kye said:

When the people who can create any image they like with virtually unlimited budget create images like these - contrasty and punchy and not sharp in the slightest, then the people who are pixel peeing the 6K cameras aren't even playing the same game.

makes sense when you decouple that from the original intent of the thread - minimal processing/grading or even SOOC. 

2 hours ago, ac6000cw said:

But how much of that is due to relatively small differences in brightness, contrast and saturation (all of which can be adjusted in post and usually in-camera by tweaking the picture profiles)?

Great question! I don't know but there are appreciable differences which is logical when you factor the dynamic relationship between varying sensors and processors, to assume they produce the same image and tangentially discuss lighting and makeup is besides the point.  There's a reason Canon was toted as the king of color for a long time, and Fuji for their stylized looks.

2 hours ago, ac6000cw said:

'm much more concerned about unnatural image distortions, like aliasing, moire (especially the false-colour variety), compression artefacts (e.g. banding and blockiness) and noise - because those can be distracting and not as easily dealt with later.

That's fair - have you noticed a brand that is putting out improvements in these areas that's caught your attention in the current market?

5 hours ago, ac6000cw said:

It's interesting how different the log transfer curves can be on different brands and cam

Will check soon! Thanks 🙏 

1 hour ago, PPNS said:

me they all look samey, boring and bland

Under very clear differences and Fuji and canon have a much more appealing image. That said I show the clips to family or friends and they always pick canon then Fuji 

1 hour ago, ac6000cw said:

...or you could just create your own flat/pseudo log transfer characteristic in-camera by adjusting a standard picture profile (e.g. contrast, saturation, highlight/shadow curves) to give you a compromise SOOC/gradable format that fits your needs?

Great problem solving thinking guys. 
 

so my next question is, has anyone found a way to shape Sony images to resemble the skintones that clog2 provides in the c70? I find those to be the most pleasing images I’ve seen in awhile. 

5 hours ago, gt3rs said:

For me to upgrade.....

Must have:

8k 60 RAW with AF and Aperture control using the internal battery

Waveform while recording

No time limits

Better IBIS for video

Face AF within an AF Zone like the R3

 

Nice to have:

Zoom-in while video playback or at least when paused on a frame... why does no C line nor R line have it?!?

LUT applied on video playback

Better DR

Better RS

Peaking while in AF mode

Sharper 4k 120

4k 120 with audio

Less lag wifi video transmission

Easier phone-camera connection.... it is a mess at the moment they should copy insta360 approach that always work.


I'm dreaming:

Dual CFExpress

Two USB-C ports

USB-C no lag video to iPhone so can be used as a screen without additional HW that make no sense...
Low latency bluetooth audio 

Full HDMI port

32 bit float audio

Wireless mic support (RODE or DJI or your Canon developed transmitter)

Dual tripod socket, this is so basic not sure why no camera manufactured do this.

4k 240

Seems

fairly reasonably, at this point I could see hopping to canon if they gave their prosumer cameras CLog2

Love this movie: 

Shot on DJI ronin 4d  pretty great image  

price and size are dealbreakers