SRV1981

Hollywood shoots ProRes for the most part, except for VFX plates. 

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. 
 
That’s us! 
 
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? 
 
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. 

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. 

It's ok - neither does anyone else!

When you say "like they are emitting light themselves" you have absolutely nailed the main problem of the video look.  I don't know if you are aware of this, so maybe you're already way ahead of the discussion here, but here's a link to something that explains it way better than I ever could (linked to timestamp):
This is why implementing subtractive saturation of some kind in post is a very effective way to reduce the "video look".  I have recently been doing a lot of experimenting and a recent experiment I did showed that reducing the brightness of the saturated areas, combined with reducing the saturation of the higher brightness areas (desaturating the highlights) really shifted the image towards a more natural look.
For those of us that aren't chasing a strong look, you have to be careful with how much of these you apply because it's very easy to go too far and it starts to seem like you're applying a "look" to the footage.  I'm yet to complete my experiments, but I think this might be something I would adjust on a per-shot basis.
You'd have to see if you can adjust the Sony to be how you wanted, I'd imagine it would just do a gain adjustment on the linear reading off the sensor and then put it through the same colour profile, so maybe you can compensate for it and maybe not.  
TBH it's pretty much impossible to evaluate colour science online.  This is because:
If you look at a bunch of videos online and they all look the same, is this because the camera can only create this look? or is this the default look and no-one knows how to change it?  or is this the current trend? If you find a single video and you like it, you can't know if it was just that particular location and time and lighting conditions where the colours were like this, or if the person is a very skilled colourist, or if it involved great looking skin-tones then maybe the person had great skin or great skill in applying makeup, or even if they somehow screwed up the lighting and it actually worked out brilliantly just by accident (in an infinite group of monkeys with typewriters one will eventually type Shakespeare) and the internet is very very much like an infinite group of monkeys with typewriters! The camera might be being used on an incredible number of amazing looking projects, but these people aren't posting to YT.  Think about it - there could be 10,000 reality TV shows shot with whatever camera you're looking at and you'd never know that they were shot on that camera because these people aren't all over YT talking about their equipment - they're at work creating solid images and then going home to spend whatever spare time they have with family and friends.  The only time we hear about what equipment is being used is if the person is a camera YouTuber, if they're an amateur who is taking 5 years to shoot their film, if they're a professional who doesn't have enough work on to keep them busy, or if the project is so high-level that the crew get interviewed and these questions get asked.
There are literally millions of moderately successful TV shows, movies, YouTube channels that look great and there is no information available about what equipment they use. Let's imagine that you find a camera that is capable of great results - this doesn't tell you what kind of results YOU will get with it.  Some cameras are just incredibly forgiving and it's easy to get great images from, and there are other cameras that are absolute PIGS to work with, and only the worlds best are able to really make the most of them.  For the people in the middle (ie. not a noob and not a god) the forgiving ones will create much nicer images than the pigs, but in the hands of the worlds best, the pig camera might even have more potential. It's hard to tell, but it looks like it might even be 1/2.  You have to change the amount when you change the focal length, but I suspect Riza isn't doing that because of how she spoke about the gear.
It's also possible to add diffusion in post.  Also, lifting the shadows with a softer contrast curve can also have a similar effect.
 

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

Saw this film last night and I was wondering if anyone knew the make of the camera and lens used. They actually showed quite a lot about the workings of a film crew in the broadcast industry. I'm not quite sure it was realistic, but it seemed believable to me, except for the use of lights in some of the shots.



 

My impression was that people like the Alexa image for everything.  The DR only matters if you're filming something that is high DR, and even then if you're watching it on a 709 display then the Alexa images have the same DR as every other camera.
I also find that Alexas look green in camera tests, but probably the main reason for loving the Alexa look is that when used on big productions or by people that know how to use it, the images look great.  However, the Alexa is just a very high quality RAW camera - the files that come out of it are as neutral as you can imagine.
It's the paradox of modern camera discussions.  The best looking images come from the most expensive cameras because the people who know that production design and colour grading is what makes great looking images are going to all that trouble anyway and so may as well rent an Alexa (or RED).  Would the production have looked as good if they shot it on a P4K or S1H?  I'd say maybe 95% as good - maybe 100%.  But, because the people using the P4K or S1H aren't using them in situations where they've put as much effort into production design or colour grading, those images don't look as good.
Not really my tastes.  Riza does a lot of work to light herself really well, but the diffusion and colour grading aren't to my tastes.  The image is too diffused and too cream and pastel green/brown for me.  Most of that is in her production design, considering that the blue and yellow in this shot looks relatively normal:

It's the "aesthetic" look that is trendy right now on YT, but Riza takes it to a whole new level.
In a way it's similar to this palette:

But compare the two shots above and notice that the bottom one is a lot crisper - Riza uses a huge amount of diffusion so everything looks hazy.
Maybe it's just my associations..  when I grew up the interiors that were the right age to be old and shitty were the Mission Brown ones, and compared to the colour schemes of the time it just looked drab and dull, which combined with the fact it was old and falling apart, really didn't enamour it to me!
I suspect that for the cultural references of the people making this content right now, this probably balances out the previous aesthetic choices in a way that makes them feel better about themselves and about life etc.  In times of change people get pretty stressed and going for a soft brown and green palette it's probably unconsciously evoking nature and naturalness in some way - which makes sense if you think about the existential threats of climate change and AI that we are currently facing.  People of this age are having climate anxiety in a big way, so it's a real thing in their world.

In case you haven't seen it, Riza did a video on how she shoots.
TLDR; she has the most basic standard equipment, but creates the look in production design and in post.

I agree (having owned 10 of their hybrid cameras and 2 camcorders in the last 15 years).
Panasonic has a long heritage in professional video (going back over 60 years) and it shows. I think the GH5 became a very popular camera for video because it was a good all-round, reliable, video tool in most situations, rather than excelling in any particular area at the expense of others or having a specific SOOC 'look'. 
For a bit of fun, this is 9 year old, basically SOOC, FHD 50p video from a Panasonic LX7 'enthusiast compact' with a small 10MP 1/1.7" sensor. There's some obvious aliasing/jaggies and I think the reds/oranges in particular are exaggerated. But for a camera launched in 2012 that fitted in the palm of one hand and weighed 270g I think it is reasonably decent (and could be improved in post). SOOC video from a G6, GX85 or G80 would leave it in the dust though, having much less aliasing and better balanced colours.
 

Post. I trust my calibrated monitor in a controlled room better than the one on set. So what I do with any new camera is I do a bunch of tests to find a setting that I like, then I shoot everything in that setting and adjust in post as needed. That way I am very familiar with what I can or can't do with that setting. I will often do tests to create specific color node graphs ahead of time, designed to be applied in post. But on the shoot I want everything to be familiar, even when I know based on my tests what it will transform into. That's not to say I'm good at cinematography. But I do think I'm good at not wasting people's time. I test everything ahead of time by myself or with the people leading the project, then we maximize set time for the actors and crew. No fiddling with settings while people are waiting around.

What I like about recent Canon C line is that the skin often has a bit more separation from other colors. I don't know that I prefer red/magenta, but it's not nice if skin gets muddled with everything else. I wouldn't say all Canon, because I was honestly never a fan of the C100's image for the few shoots I used it on.
I don't know that I especially like color on the Panasonic S-series as SOOC it tends to exaggerate yellows. It's a great camera and does what I need at an unbeatable price though.

Great camera.  It's cinema in a box the size of a pack of cigarettes.
There's nothing wrong with video - technically it's what I do.
One thing that is starting to be understood is the look of the footage, which with video often looks quite artificial, which is in contrast to film which looks quite organic.  Artificial isn't a bad thing either - all styles are valid.
My own preferences are for something that is aesthetically pleasing, mildly flattering, and doesn't call attention to itself.  This has pushed me into investigating the whole subject and what "cinematic" actually means, which leads into the territory of YouTubers making cinematic videos that despite having huge amounts of effort and thousands of dollars of equipment are some of the least cinematic videos ever made, even when compared to something like a T2i.
...and you can install your own.  Bingo!  Instantly, you can have whatever look you want, SOOC.
This is what I do.
My current best answer is GX85, 14-140mm zoom, 12-35mm zoom, and 12-32mm zoom.  If I'm not allowed to colour grade it, I'll edit it on a 720p timeline and export upscaling that timeline to 4K.  That will knock the digital edge off it.
Why?  
Because if your camera is large then you'll get beautiful images with lovely colour science and everyone in the background of those images will be staring at the camera.
Oh darn it!  There I go again, talking about something other than colour.  It's like I'll never learn that there's no more to film-making than camera tests.
C300mk2.
Why?
Go watch any video on why this is the most popular documentary camera.
Rent an Alexa.
If you want to understand why, go watch any video from a professional cinematographer or colourist talking about why Alexa is the best choice.
Neither do I.  Which is sort of the point I've been making all along.
Alexas are known to be green, sometimes even problematically so.  Canons are magenta.  etc etc.
If we're talking about choosing cameras for the best SOOC colour, and yet bizarrely there isn't any limitation on the fact that some cameras require 3 people to operate them, then I'm thinking that if you can put a LUT in the camera then it counts as being SOOC colour.  Ironically, because it comes SOOC lol.
In which case, you can choose Alexa 65 and just put a modified 250D / 2383 LUT in there and you're done!
Alexas also tend to go green.
There's a knob in any NLE that corrects this, but don't let 3s of work in post stop you from changing your entire set design around that one tiny little thing!

Right, but they are not the same as shooting log and then using Resolve color management as a 1-step modification. On my S5, shooting Vlog and then using color management > shooting standard profile.
Or, if you mean a baked in user-specified LUT, that adds another dimension again.
I know, I meant for the discussion. Otherwise... Alexa 35 is always the answer 🙂
These are hard questions because almost no test footage on the internet is SOOC, I haven't used every camera, and also of course there are many different film stocks so it really depends what you consider a film look. I'll also assume price new so the C70 is >$4k etc.
But given my limited knowledge, and if the only consideration is color with zero post manipulation, for a generic project, my only answer is the Samsung NX1. Absolutely blows everything else I've used out of the water!
However, I would never use NX as its a dead system with no active EF adapters. And there is no log profile.
So my personal choice in that scenario would probably be a Panasonic S5IIx. But a good portion of my reasoning is based on Vlog, its pixel shift photo mode, and no strange crop factors and other limitations like some others. So not strictly color.
This introduces another caveat in addition to the ones above, which is that color is the last consideration for a run and gun doc. My choice is whichever camera has the best AF, IS, sensitivity, audio, and reliability. So while the NX1 color is great, it's absolutely my last pick for the purpose.
Overall, I would pick a C200 for the $4k budget, and C500mkII for $10k. They have great color and also fit the other criteria.
Ergonomics play much less of a role here than for doc, but of course the big consideration is what the production looks like and what our goal is. Are we shooting natural light? Studio lights? Indoor with a couple 100-200W LEDs? What lenses? Since I can take my time, I'm absolutely shooting log and doing color work in post. So I wouldn't even consider the SOOC question for this scenario 🙂
For $5k I'm probably using a Z Cam F6. The ergonomics, sensitivity, and wireless control are huge, and the color is fine.
For $10k the C500mkII looks pretty good. My friend just got a pair and loves them, but I haven't tried it personally.

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

Yeah I heard the original question, and I think that while the posts diving into complex grading are fascinating and useful to those of us who do post, I know that getting good color SOOC is a separate question.
One big point about your question is that it doesn't break down by manufacturer. Not all REDs look the same, not all Sonys look the same, etc. I think the Sony FX6 looks fine, but I dislike the FS7. Also, most cameras have different profiles. Sometimes, there is greater  difference between profiles on the same camera, than between normal/natural/standard/default/whatever profiles on many different cameras. And even within a profile, you'll have totally different results based on how many controls you leave on auto (such as WB) and your lens.
SOOC and minimal grading are completely different. SOOC excludes log profiles, for one thing.
There is budget as well. Best SOOC ever? Alexa 35, probably. Under $10k? C500mkII gets my vote. Under $2k? Nikon Z6 is solid. Are you including lenses in your budget? I like the color out of my Canon L 24-105 better than that of my Canon 50 1.8 (tested on Sony A7rII). Though I have also used terrible lenses for specific scenes, specifically to make them less appealing.
If you want a specific answer or even a specific discussion, ask a more specific question because your original question is extremely open ended--which is fine to start with! But it's probably more useful and interesting to narrow the parameters a bit.

For my own stuff, I prefer it to be as 'faithful as possible' to the original scene, within the limits of the tools I've got and the amount of time I'm prepared to spend fiddling with it. I don't care what someone else wants to categorise that as, but I suspect it would come under your 'video' category.
Personally the parts of the production process I find most interesting are being out-and-about recording the content, the basic editing (the clip choice, 'flow' and the cutting) and getting the best out of the ambient sound. Adjusting the image doesn't usually get much more advanced for me than brightness, contrast, saturation and sharpness, unless there's a clip that's particularly 'off' what I think it should look like in the lighting conditions at the time.
But I'm perfectly happy respecting and enjoying other peoples artistic choices, including abstract art (which is inherently non-realistic). But nobody likes every piece of art they view...

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?

You can agree or disagree or bump whatever threads you want - I showed you examples from the real world.
If bumping threads somehow changed reality, I'd bump as many threads as was necessary to make it so that I could get Hollywood level colour from my phone without any work in post.  Hell, I'd create all the accounts and make all the posts myself if it would actually make it so.
I am so vocal about this because what you are asking about is what I desperately want, but that just isn't how it works.
To answer your question directly, no I don't say that the camera doesn't matter at all, but the camera doesn't matter in terms of getting great shots straight-out-of-camera without any work in post, because none of them can do it.  Have you ever seen ungraded Alexa footage?  It looks just like ungraded footage from any other capable camera (S1H, BMPCC, etc).
In fact, you know what...  here's your answer.  The BMPCC 4K.
Here is a comparison between an Alexa and a BMPCC 4K without any grading done in post except the ARRI LUT (and of course the BMPCC4K has had a conversion put onto it to make it match the Alexa).
Juan is a professional film-maker / colourist and this is the real-deal, not a YT LUT bro product.  
If you think that any camera is capable of what you want then the Alexa must be, and as you can see, with that conversion the BMPCC4K can do it too.
This is the product page.
https://juanmelara.com.au/products/bmpcc-4k-to-alexa-powergrade-and-luts
Knock yourself out!

The image I posted with the bad lighting was GH5, shooting LOG, with a standard conversion to 709.
The GH5 is a huge capable camera, the issue was the lighting not the camera.

Sure.
You just have to hope that the world is perfect and doesn't give you mixed lighting.  That every shot you take has the same lighting ratio.  That your camera doesn't have metameric failure as the WB changes to match the lighting changes.  Etc Etc.
Even on completely controlled film sets, colourists still tweak each shot to even them up between angles etc, so even if the world was perfect your results still wouldn't be.

....and if that image doesn't illustrate the problem with lighting, how about this one.
SOOC HLG:

With a basic grade:

These lights all looked white in person!
I sat down, pulled out my camera (GH5 again), looked through the viewfinder and was stunned at the green/magenta mess the camera saw.

More examples of bad lighting.
This was a 709 shot from my GF3, which obviously couldn't auto-WB far enough to compensate (yes, this looked white in person):

My best attempt at grading in post also couldn't compensate well enough:

But the real demonstration is on a project.
Here's a camera test I shot.  These are the images after grading:

They all look pretty straight-forward, but it took a lot of work to get to that.  Here are the shots SOOC:

Note that adjacent shots have considerably different looks - SOOC:

After:

Obviously I've let the flaring lower the contrast on the middle images to a certain extent because otherwise it would look too forced, but the tint of the first image and second ones needed to be evened out as one had the sun in it and the other didn't.
I've shot these tests by the beach many times, using many different cameras (OG BMPCC, BMMCC, GH5, GX85, XC10, GF3, iPhone, GoPro, etc), shooting manually and in auto, in RAW / LOG / 709, etc etc.  All required decent amounts of work in post to even them out and look normal.
It's like anything - the natural look takes the most amount of work and is, in reality, the least natural.
You keep saying you want nice looking images without doing any/much work, but I've been working super hard at this for quite some years now and it's just not possible.  You either get nice looking images with work, or you wave the camera around and you get out what you put in - a film that looks like a dad with a handycam.
The myth that you can buy it was created by equipment manufacturers trying to sell you cameras and LUT bros on YT trying to sell their LUT packs.

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 

I debated between the two last year and went with the C70.  It's my go-to A camera these days with the R5 as B camera.  Without watching that video, I'd guess that the image on the right is the C70 (more highlight and shadow detail).