kye

The ARRI footage is lovely, the demo is hugely impressive, and if someone was to offer me a free camera I would fly anywhere in the world to come collect it. But I think you guys are missing my point, I'm trying to understand where within the realm of acceptable skin-tones it sits. If we start with the concept that the C200 clips show skin tones that are redder than the reddest person in the ARRI footage, then one of the following statements must be true: 1) If the C200 colours are acceptable as skin tones, that would mean that the range of acceptable skin tones contains skin as yellow as the ARRI footage and as red as the C200 clips, which means that the ARRI skin tones are all on the yellow side of the acceptable skin tone range. or 2) The ARRI footage is not at the yellow side of the acceptable skin tone range, but is more neutrally presented, which means that as the C200 skin tones are considerably redder then this they must be unacceptably red and outside the realm of acceptable skin tones. I believe it's the first one, and that it's just a style thing, or an ARRI 'look'. The C200 footage thread contained positive feedback about some of the grades from the films I screen-grabbed, so I'm guessing they're within the acceptable range of skin tones. Please note that at no point did I mention anything subjective in the above statements, it's quite simple - either Canon is fine and the ARRI is yellow-biased or the ARRI isn't yellow-biased and the Canon grades are out of bounds. I'm just trying to understand which is which. Maybe it's too obvious a question and you guys are reading into it some kind of subtext?

Hi Jonpais. I think you misunderstand me. I am saying that the ARRI skin tones all appear to be on the yellow-side of the acceptable range of skin tones, not that they're out of the acceptable range. As someone who has quite a lot of colour variation in my own skin tones (a model I am definitely not!) and I lack willing volunteers for my camera tests I end up grading myself - both in still images and video - so I'm familiar with the problem of people who are pink in some locations (lips, around the nose, in the ears, etc) and yellow in others (temple areas, shadows under the chin, etc). I shoot Canon which I know has a red tinted bias but I thought was still acceptable, especially if you compress the skin hues with the Hue vs Hue curve in Resolve. The reason I didn't mention what I am viewing these on (MacBook Pro 2016 calibrated with Datacolor Spyder 4 PRO in my studio with all controlled lighting) is that I am an amateur and new to the colour game and my monitor is far more calibrated than my eyes. That being said, while I wouldn't trust my own grading, I do trust the professionally released C200 videos I linked above. The C200 videos showed a range of skin tones, some on the yellow side similar to ARRI and some on the redder side which I chose for the screen captures above. All of the screen grabs I took are pinker than the pinkest person in the ARRI video. The gentleman on the left with the tie from the ARRI video has quite a lot of hue variation in his skin - typical of an older person, however the hue differences *as shown in the ARRI video* are pretty minimal - look at the colour of all of their lips for example. I would suggest the model probably has pinker skin tones than all of the people from the C200 videos (with the possible exception of the guy in the cap who has a touch of sunburn on his nose) yet the ARRI video doesn't show this - it shows barely any variation in hue. My original question was a genuine question and not a veiled criticism, and it still stands - is this preference for yellow skin tones (which are on the yellow side but still quite acceptable) an ARRI 'look'? In the way that Canon prefers redder ones? Or is this part of the grade? The author of the two articles in the original post of this thread talked at length about camera manufacturers making choices that determined their looks, both from an aesthetic perspective and also from a technical perspective to work around the limitations of their hardware, so this is the context of my question.

Here are 8 screen grabs - the top row are the people from the ARRI reel likely to have the most pink in their skin tones, and the bottom row are people from the "Shot on the C200" thread over at DVX (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?357491-SHOT-ON-THE-C200-Completed-released-commercial-projects-only). It was easy to find people with significantly more pink in their skin tones than anyone in the ARRI video. In regards to being facetious, maybe it's best to try avoiding it rather than just not aiming for it.

Can we talk about the new ARRI FF 4k demo reel? After reading the two articles in the OP of this thread (very educational to me) I watched this one with great interest. Some observations and questions.. Everything seems quite desaturated, or at least 'modest'. Down to the choice of clothing, etc. The animals are also not screaming with saturation (which some would be in real life). All the skin tones seem very yellow, without a huge variance between the yellower and pinker skin tones. Is this an ARRI 'look'? Or is this the grade?

Yes, that was one of the problems that put people off the camera, and the lower base ISO (and therefore NR) of the standard profile guided the conversation to modifying the standard profile to get further away. I've shot a bunch of things, but I'm not good enough at grading yet to be confident that any differences would be a result of the profiles and not me stuffing things up in post. I'm planning on watching a bunch of tutorials on how to grade C-Log over the weekend. My plan is to get good enough at grading C-Log so that I can duplicate the C-Log to Rec.709 preset, and also be able to duplicate various nice grades I find online. Then I can grade my C-Log footage with confidence, then grade my modified EOS Standard profile to match, and then I can compare the profiles.

The profile that the thread eventually decided on was EOS Standard, Sharpness +4, Contrast -4, Color Depth -4. I think their logic was that it had the lower base ISO and therefore was further away from the temporal noise reduction (and ghosting) that it could cause. My rationale was that with both profiles having the same dynamic range, I'd prefer to allocate my 8 bits so they're more concentrated in the middle rather than giving lots of detail in the highlights and shadows at the expense of colour information in skin tones etc. After making that decision I did a comparison with different profiles and didn't run into the normal problems that people talk about with 8-bit + log profiles such as banding or skin falling apart, etc, although I did notice more noise in some tests with C-Log than the modified standard profile.

Did anyone do any tests of C-log vs WideDR or the custom preset that was hammered out in the 55 page "Canon XC10 4K camcorder" thread? The reason I ask is that I did and it was interesting - the custom preset seemed to be more defined, with lower noise, etc. I'm aware of the differences between sharpness and resolution, but tried applying sharpness to the C-Log footage to try and emulate the custom preset but couldn't manage it, either with the Resolve sliders or the Sharpness plugin. One question I always had with this camera was how many people were using C-log for compatibility with other cameras, how many for ease of use with LUTs etc, and how many were labouring under the false assumption that the dynamic range was greater than in the standard profile. @BenEricson Yes, the codec only has so much bandwidth (305Mbit is a lot, but it's still far from RAW) so if you're shooting in f16 then that bandwidth is being devoted across the whole image because everything will be in focus, if you shoot wide open then the out of focus areas will consume less bandwidth and leave more for the sharper areas. One thing I never worked out was a good hand strap. All the other cinema cameras have one that goes with the handgrip but this one doesn't for some reason.

Hi All, Any XC10 (and maybe XC15) owners interested in sharing tips / techniques / settings for making the most of these cameras? There has been lots of criticism (and bashing) of these cameras, and lots of testing that showed their weaknesses and what not to do, but avoiding mistakes isn't optimisation. I've done some tests myself (inspired by thehurlblog testing the 1DC) but won't bother sharing unless there is interest and input from others. Kye.