Jump to content

Color science


Recommended Posts

On 11/6/2018 at 6:39 PM, zerocool22 said:

Yeah I saw a camera comparison yesterday between canon r, a7iii, pocket 4K, nikon z7 and XT3. The colors from Canon R, XT3 and pocket4K stood out a whole lot better. And then on youtube I was seeing all these replies sony A7III is the clear winner. Maybe my eyes are different, or maybe its like the saying, "In the land of the blind, one-eye is king". 

In fact,none of those online tests or website tests I seen proved they are using the best colour settings for their cameras,just defult settings for comparisons is stupid

Who will always using  defult settings ?

If one camera on defult settings provide bad results,then claim it has bad colour science

That is unfair and not scientific

If I am using sony with EOS pro colour setting VS defult settings on a canon camera,and their image looks totally the same ,can I claim they both have the same colour science?

What about cine colours on GH5,film simulations on fuji cameras?

There are many potential possibilities for just one camera,and I think the way we judge the colours on cameras,mostly too subjective and not in a fair way

I can also do a blind test on this topic

 Can you identify which pic is the canon?;)






Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes, I really wish it were available on the current generation of bodies. Really awesome, pro-level idea, much like what the Varicams offer with wireless CDL creation. I think we need to differen

Very, very good video.  

I find that to be incorrect. Even when adjusting raw, the original color science is in effect and dictates how and how much adjustments are needed. Otherwise for example all LUTs would work the same o

Posted Images

12 hours ago, webrunner5 said:


2 hours ago, gelaxstudio said:

Can you identify which pic is the canon?;)

All cameras have their own character, what a person should understand
first is that we see results in front of a Monitor (many times it's cheap) ...

So the result is compromised by the monitor, as well as the display software (vlc is correct), a good video card, etc ...

To demonstrate this in the link, the colorist uses Eizo pro series ...

This is to say that the tests are useless because each of us has very different equipment and tastes not comparable with each other, but even the final result can be comparable starting from the same camera.

To tell the truth I do not find any camera with the wrong colors, different, but corrected in post, through a good monitor.

I shoot with Sony A7rII and I have a Lg31 and a BenQ 27 ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gelaxstudio said:

In fact,none of those online tests or website tests I seen proved they are using the best colour settings for their cameras,just defult settings for comparisons is stupid

Who will always using  default settings ?


I would imagine over 90% of the people that buy the camera will leave it on the default settings. I wrote about that in another thread. The average person doesn't know shit about CS and Luts, Raw, on and on. They just turn it on in auto mode and away they go, especially in Video mode. And 98% shoot JPEG so that is auto mode also. That is the Factory CS. And that is what they like or they would have bought another brand.

I would bet 99% of people Never change anything on an iPhone Photo, Video wise other than maybe from 4K to 1080p or vice versa. Turn it on and go. And on a iPhone, Apple has it down to a tee right out of the box for damn near perfect stuff right OOC.

Heck even I probably shoot 95% of the time in dummy mode on my iPhone. When I want to get the best I use Filmic Pro, but not very often to be honest. Stuff is damn good now right out of camera on most of them. They know what the clients want, and they deliver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I have a 30" S-IPS HP ZR30w monitor that I calibrate with a Spider. At the time it was new it cost over 1200 bucks in 2010. It is a 2K monitor. And I know I am not color blind because I had a job for several years where I have to be just about perfect on seeing correct colors for the Telephone Company I worked at installing and repairing Phone Lines at the main telephone building. Some of the lines had over a 1000 pairs of wires in them. All color coded different.

So yeah I agree, I see a lot of wonky stuff on the web, even on here that at times that I think out of line colors wise. But we all see colors a bit different, especially women compared to men. But if we like it, well that is all that really counts isn't it, right or wrong LoL. To each their own as they say.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Shirozina said:

That's not the bit depth but the Chroma subsampling in Y'CbCr codecs. Even in 10bit  the colour information is very compromised compared to the Luma information. 

So, if I understand correctly, colour information is worse than in a theoretical 8-bit RAW codec then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2018 at 6:46 PM, kye said:

@TheRenaissanceMan touched on two of the biggest issues - the limitations of 8-bit video and the ease of use.

It is technically true that you can use software (like Resolve or photoshop) to convert an image from basically any set of colours into any other set of colours, but in 8-bit files you may find that information may well be missing to do a seamless job of it.  Worse still, the closer a match you want, the more manipulations you must do, and the more complicated the processing becomes.

Fully agree with TheRenaissanceMan and you. We are on the same page here. How easy or difficult it is to get the color we want makes huge difference. My comments about RAW were mostly for photo. Tony's test is mostly for the photo side of hybrid cameras. Adding video in the bag is not correct, because:

  a. as you point out most DSLR mirrorless cameras  shoot 8bit 4:2:0 which is quite different and limited compared to RAW and even JPG. Getting the colors we want may be quite difficult and time consuming. 

 b. RAW video is not = to RAW photo. Most if not all cameras shoot  RAW video but in log format. Which means some kind of additional processing related to colors is applied in camera. It is not the RAW image as it comes from the sensor. And cameras from different companies have different log formats, even the sensor is the same. For example Panasonic GH5S and Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K. Same sensor, different log formats.

In both cases  there is some form of in camera color processing/manipulation. We still have the problem measuring those colors in RAW, we still have to go with the development process before any measurement is possible. But it would be correct to say there is in camera color science and is logical to expect that it will affect the end results. 

Tony's argument that people will not notice and object slight variation in color and sometimes even big color shifts also is not correct for video. We still want to get the colors we want and even we ignore this we still have to color match different sequences under different lighting condition in one movie/clip.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...