Andrew Reid

Yes very tragic Some real nutters in the world! That short clip is a total work of art by the way.

Nada, nothing. They don't seem to reply to emails. I suppose we'll have to keep an eye on their website for firmware update news.

Not without RSI. To avoid that, picking up another camera instead that doesn't have broken colour would be as easy as 5 seconds. So it's all unnecessary ball aches.

See, even the big Sony fanboy admits it. You don't even have to try to make Sony's colour look bad. It just is bad. It made me laugh on the other thread, when a guy said I must have tried really hard to make her look that bad... When that was how the RAW looked straight after I opened it.

Opposite way round my friend. Took around 5 minutes? Now multiply that by 1000. You fix my photos. I'll pay you $1 for the lot. Still short of the Canon anyway. Exactly. White balance is baked into S-LOG 2. Then people put a totally different colour temperature on it with a LUT. No wonder it looks a bit weird. I remember that Sony recognised this was a problem and on the FS cameras you get to choose S-Gamut White Balance Color Modes like 5300K! Problem was, then you lost your usual AWB system and had to dive into the shitty Sony menus to select a preset. The Leica M9 is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You open the RAW in Adobe, and then 2 seconds later, it's done. No fiddling or 5 minutes to fix problems. Do the same thing with a Sony and no matter what, people look like they have big red bags under their eyes, yellow shadow under their chin, magenta rashes and zombie-dead flesh where a nice healthy glow should be. It's much easier to fix greens and blues in landscapes if needed, than it is to fix skin. Skin is very complicated and you rely on the camera to get it right.

Yep. Just don't judge it off YouTube adverts.

I shot it and I know the light isn't the issue. I can even find two more similar shots, one Sony and one Canon, and you'll see EXACTLY the same skin issues with the Sony. Do you remember the Pro Colour video as well? Yellow cast in every lighting condition not just daylight. Appalling. Looks like The Simpsons. It took Pro Color to fix it and give it back any sense of reality, with the golden warm glow of the incandescent lights and real skin hues.

Is Van Gogh where Sony got their green-grey-yellow facial shadow tones from? On the Camera Portrait setting in Adobe Camera Raw, the raw file gives the impression she's standing next to a just-out of frame Slimer.

The lamas in your profile pic would make a good gimbal.

Chill! It's a tongue in cheek poll. Anyway have a look at the lighting yourself. The RAW file is attached below. All I did was increase saturation and contrast equally on both the 1D C shot and A7S II... And not by much. Same day, same location, same natural light at same angle... Canon whipped the Sony's ass. See the JPEG from the 1D C attached as well. It was taken within seconds of the other one and same light. As you can see the yellow cast in the Sony shot, just isn't present in the Canon shot. You can't blame the fucking sun!! CANON 1D C RAW FILE: 1DC_8016.CR2 SONY RAW FILE: DSC03163.ARW I am sure someone will show me it corrected. Time how long it took you in the HSL panel and more. Then multiply that by the 700 shots of my shoot. If you want to do it like a pro, you have to adjust each different shot differently!

You can select Sony's camera presets in ACR as well. These are worse than the Adobe ones. We are not talking about JPEGs here, mainly RAW. Here is what the A7S II looks like after several hours of effort. CAMERA DEFAULT IN ADOBE: PAINFUL HARD WORK: CAMERA DEFAULT IN ADOBE: PAINFUL HARD WORK: Conclusion--- If you like painful hard work, buy a Sony.

CANON: SONY:

Taste is a broad spectrum. Let's have a poll. https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/34918-which-colour-science-do-you-like-the-most/

We have both been alive for the same number of years since the A7R II came out. Unless you have lived two simultaneous parallel lives in an alternative universe where all the facts are different and the A7R II shot rubbish video I bought both the A7R II and a7R III for video... Full frame image wasn't too shabby at all. It was one of the cameras that strived at the forefront of technology to do BOTH stills and video to the MAX. And now Sony has decided to hold it back and just tweak it... rather than push forward with the stuff it badly needs to stay competitive with Fuji and Panasonic's hybrid cameras... Like proper colour film profiles, 10bit, ND, etc. The X-T3 is also a camera massively aimed at stills people, but look at the video mode... amazing. The skill of the person costs time. Often it also costs money. And on top of all that, even more often it is a fucking pain in the ass. People who are skilled at grading don't suddenly have 200 hours in 1 day to spend on a bunch of RAW files from a Sony A7S II. @Mattias Burling has said as much again and again, he wants the camera to minimise his effort so he can do simple grades with a big impact. If you're implying that only post matters, you're also kinda saying RAW data and all sensors are equal... Well it isn't. They have different characteristics. The default settings matter. The white balance system matters. The colour filter array matters. The readout matters. The onboard chip A/D matters. The calibration and imaging pipeline matters. The Adobe Camera Raw presets matter, for each individual camera. RAW capture doesn't end when the light wavelength hits the sensor! Yeah, I buy a full frame sensor to crop.... NOT! I just love that small sensor look so much from my 61 megapixel A7R! I can't live without 61 megapixel... Gotta crop ALL THE TIME Who needs a zoom when you can crop to 1/2.3" sensor size!? 100MB per file isn't big enough, I want 2TB raw stills and 2000TB SD cards that take 2 weeks to open! I've nothing against pixel shift. I'm just a guy who has difficulty telling the difference at normal viewing distances of 24 megapixel versus 50+ megapixel when I am not zoomed in at 100% on a tiny window of the overall image. But yes, 240 megapixel... Bring it on Yes that much is clear. You sound a bit like a Sony exec. They clearly have decided the cutting edge hybrid video/stills focus of 2015 had to be watered down, otherwise they couldn't sell us 3 separate bodies. One for video. One for stills. And one that did neither well, but looks kinda cute. Segmentation is the name of the game when it comes to profit. Sony are the new Canon. (Just not when it comes to colour science)

Yes it's all subjective and even changes over time. I have gone through phases. Often preferring warm looks, then back to wanting to see strong blues and greens again. It also depends on the piece, the mood you're trying to do obviously. The job of the camera is to keep the effort down and get out of the way. I don't want to have to be correcting some green cast under someone's chin, when I could be doing SO MUCH MORE with my time.

When I shot this on the A7R II, I was reasonably pleased with the skin tones.... After 200 hours of LUT work.

You're talking a right load of cobblers. The A7R II was a massive leap for video. It came along at a time when the A7S was only shooting 1080p internal and the Nikon D750 the same. The NX1, GH4 and 1D C were the only other games in town for 4K video. Summer of 2015 was very good. Summer of 2019 and we STILL have same fucking codec and hardly anything has improved. Even the stills side is not a big leap. So if this is JUST a stills camera (and it isn't) they haven't exactly done a great job there either with just minor tweaks. The handling is finally an improvement, but partly only because it was so dreadful to begin with! Nope it's a hybrid camera. Otherwise it wouldn't have S-LOG2, S-LOG3, knee, black level, gamma curve, colour mode, XAVC-S, S&Q, 4K, Super 35mm mode, timecode, HDMI, slow-mo 120fps, proxy recording, IBIS, video eye AF and be marketed towards video users. Quite a lot of video focus for JUST A STILLS CAMERA. Geeezus wept. Yes the alarming thing is the lack of A7S3 in 2019, after 2015 brought us the prior model, 4 NABs have passed with Diddy shit.

It's hard to have a debate with someone who takes everything personally. Yes 5 years ago Sony colour science was even more wonky. Again, don't take it personally. You didn't design it! If you liked the zombie film look then fine. Maybe you were actually shooting the undead, then it would come in very useful, with no grading required. Sony's colour science has also saved The Simpsons thousands in post production. When the apocalypse comes I know I will reach for my RX100. What is this mysterious Venice colour science you talk about. Do you own a camera that uses it? I don't. I am pretty sure it's all Creative Style shit and decades old Picture Profiles on the new cam as well, oh dear.

Was referring to @Palpet's comment DB. The point anyway is not about whether you can correct or grade Sony footage nicely. You can. I do it myself. Also Pro Color works well and saves a lot of time and effort as well. The point is that it should be fucking right in the first place. I know from A7R II / A99 II point, colour took a turn for the better but it still isn't as good as 2008's Sony A900 with Minolta DNA. I took both out on a casual shoot the other week and saw it for myself. The Playstation team is in charge of colour at Sony with their very yellow blow-up dolls.

No the thread is not about photography. It's about a hybrid of both. Just like the A7R IV is a hybrid camera. Video is very important on it. It's not a Nikon Df. Sony has decided to sit back and consolidate their sales. The A7 III killed the A7R III sales. They need a new model to justify the $3500 again. Problem is they haven't been very creative with it, simple as that really. Bringing Eye AF in from the cheap A6400 is useful but how is it ground-breaking flagship stuff? 61 megapixels? Nobody asked for that. If you find a use for it instead of 42 megapixel let me know The expectation was that this camera would at least be better than a $1300 Fuji X-T3 for video. It is $3500 after all. 2015 called and it wants its 8bit and frame rates back.

You're entitled to have an opinion on Philip Bloom's many hours of custom grading and his LUT collection. But it's an opinion on that, not the Sony colour science or defaults, you do realise what you are seeing is not straight from the camera don't you??

They are very much a numbers company. I look back on my Sony shoots and think exactly the same thing. Never spent so much time fiddling with a grade as I did with Sony cameras. Time and effort that could have gone towards other things. What model did you go for at that time? Funny thing is they HAD it right, with the purchase of Minolta. The full frame Sony/Minolta A900 has absolutely FANTASTIC colour science. It also has a very clear and responsive menu system! ? That's pretty much how I came up with EOSHD Pro Color!! Sony has had all our feedback for free and they thank us for it by asking us to stump up another $3500 in order to make use of it. Magic Lantern remember didn't even have access to Canon's source code, it is trial and error reverse engineering and they still managed to implement RAW while the big manufacturers moan about not being able to do it in 2019 on their own cameras which are a fucking open box to them, and their multi-million dollar engineering teams. Instead they go running off to Atomos and fiddle with HDMI cables, promise it externally at great inconvenience and cost to users, and then spend 6 months Q/A testing while users wait wondering if it has been cancelled. I bet there are a LOT wrong with these big companies and we only are getting glimpses.

I think if someone at a Sony PR event really likes it, we should all rush out and drop $3500 on it immediately. What do you think?

Of course they made improvements to colour with a few of the new models, but I still find myself shooting Fuji, Canon, Nikon, Olympus more often, and I still had to create Pro Color for the A7R IV, to bypass the dreary defaults. There is no EOSHD Pro Color for Fuji, is there?!

Canon 1D C Sony A7S II Different opinions are fine but Alternative Facts aren't. Even a blind person can feel very clearly what the difference is because one is positively radioactive. And these are RAWs straight off the SD card with no colour adjustment whatsoever. The amount of time and skill it would take to create a custom grade for that Sony RAW still so that it matches the Canon would be immense. One preset might not work for all shots, you'd have to tailor it. The Sony has green and yellow going on with skin, whether it is in the RAW file or the JPEG, it needs adjusting no matter what. And while it's true you have more headroom to adjust it in RAW than JPEG, it is still time and effort down the drain.