Robert Collins Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 9 minutes ago, Yurolov said: Regardless, you don't understand color science if you don't see that the canon image is far superior. Well lets start by getting this one out of the way. 'Color science' is an oxymoron. Because science deals with facts and color is a perception. Exactly the same rose will 'look' a different red to anyone against a blue background than a green background. And I just feel there is a whole less 'science' and a whole lot more 'subjectivity'than people imagine. And let me explain something very basic. I havent been doing video very long (I am a photographer) - about 6 months. But I have been studying hard and trying to learn. I have learnt that pretty much everyone goes for or likes a 'filmic' look. But however you analyse the 'filmic look' (so somewhere near to science) it is 'achieved' by actually 'degrading' in an 'objective' sense the underlying image. Nearly all the characteristics of the filmic look is about making the underlying image crappier. That goes for 'low contrast', 'less sharpness', 'adding grain', 'less accurate colors', even the '180 degree rule'. The very phrase 'filmic' smacks not of 'science' but 'subjectivity'. When people talk of film cameras, ancient lenses etc and the results they produce they are 'definitely' talking aesthetics and not science. In an artistic sense imperfections are very important - the Mona Lisa wouldnt be the Mona Lisa without the crooked smile. And even the smartphone image we love to hate is largely a case of it being too good rather than too bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.