jcs

Did you try this yet? PP6 Black Level: -7 Gamma: Cine2 Black Gamma: Middle, Level 0 Knee: Auto Color Mode: Cinema Saturation: +3 Color Phase: 0 Color Depth: R: -7 G: -1 B: 0 C: 0 M: 0 Y: -3 Detail, Level: -7 While you can adjust Color Phase to help dial out green, it's best to make such tweaks to WB for the conditions. A Rec709 profile with saturation dialed down might also be a good starting point.

I've seen Showscan (60fps film) and it looks amazing: just like the front of the theater is a giant window, or like watching a live play of actors on stage. 60fps on TVs at home doesn't look the same: I always turn off the various flavors of motion upsampling (it does work better for sports, however). Showscan, like 3D, works very well in amusement parks AKA Location Based Entertainment (LBE).

The best tests are minimally 'single blind' when you don't know which camera is which: Alexa and 5D3R cut very well together and a typical audience member won't notice any differences. Again, no one is saying 5D3R matches Alexa. We're saying it comes amazingly close, and most people love the colors. Case in point: if Canon is the most popular stills camera due to their color science, it makes sense that RAW stills captured at 24fps are also very popular with audiences. Regarding getting out and shooting, we've posted quite a few example videos of our work, do you have any examples of your work that could help us understand your idea of filmic? Again, no one is attempting to prove the 5D is as good as Alexa- we're saying it comes amazingly close. I was recently in Atlanta and spoke with John Sharaf about cameras and filmmaking (his facility is very cool: http://www.sharaf.net/). I have been considering purchasing an ARRI Amira however after talking to him, it doesn't make business sense. He's in the rental business and most productions are renting cameras and lenses. Purchasing a single Amira for shooting and then making available for rental doesn't work. After spending money on advertising and once the camera is out for rental, additional clients call looking to rent the camera. Frequently not having cameras available isn't good business, so the investment then becomes purchasing more and more cameras (he has over 20 Alexas and Amiras and all the high-end lenses). After showing him our work on an iPad, the takeaway for indie productions was that for HD delivery, the A7S, GH4, and 5D3R are all more than sufficient. Even if we wanted to purchase an Amira, they're not generally available (perhaps John Sharaf was able to acquire them due to his relationship with ARRI).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060320221839.htm

Right, the A7S could possibly do better with more available DR, however the skintones won't look as good. Just as with real film, we light for faces/skintones and make sacrifices for hightlights/shadows as needed. IIRC, the A7S's sweetspot for skintones puts more useable DR in the shadows vs. the highlights, so it may not do better than the 5D3 for this condition. What elements don't look filmic? Do you have examples of your Alexa work you can share showing how and why it looks more filmic? Regarding looking like an Alexa: there are many examples showing 5D3 RAW comparing well to Alexa footage in the exact same conditions. Do you have examples showing otherwise? (I would expect an inside to outside window shot to favor Alexa (DR)). Here's a tutorial and example footage for converting 5D3 RAW into an Alexa rec709 look: Regarding dynamic range- I think we both covered the same points in the same way (clipping, optimization), however mathematically 14-bits (16384 steps) provide for more color and luminance manipulation in post before artifacts appear due to color compression (from e.g. a curve slope) and quantization. Amazing things are possible with ACR highlight/shadows and 5D3 RAW: There's more detail in the shadows- I crushed them to focus attention on the sunset. I'm not sure if the A7S could do better for this shot (perhaps a slightly smaller sun clip area. If the shadows needed more light, the A7S would do better, but again, was not needed for this shot). Ideally we'd want to use all available DR for every shot, however that's not always possible (and rarely possible outside of a studio if we're optimizing exposure for skintones). From all the tests I have viewed, 5D3 RAW and Alexa can perform similarly except in extreme conditions for color (Alexa can record 2.8-3.4K resolution (Amira will do a scaled up "4k")). 5D3 RAW even compares well to film (see the Atlantis video in this thread). At $40+k for an Amira, no one is arguing that 5D3 RAW (or A7S) matches or exceeds ARRI, however in many conditions it's amazing that it comes close enough to easily cut between cameras.

maxotics, here's a an early test with 5D3 RAW shooting very high contrast in bright sunlight (inside shooting outside to the street): At the time of the test I didn't have all the tools to preserve skintones at the same time as taming the background (via masking, etc.)). Even so, as a beginning user of RAW we liked how filmic it turned out. For the interior, natural lighting was used and no makeup was applied to the manager. Skintones for both turned out well for the conditions. For the inside to outside shot, the A7S would likely do better (more DR). I'm curious how much as 14-bit RAW with ACR has a lot of gradations for shadow/highlight manipulation (16384 vs 256): as long as highlights and shadows aren't clipped, it would be able to match or exceed what is possible with the A7S. I purchased a Sony FS700 right after the SpeedBooster came out and have been grading Sony footage for a while now. Whereas I can match cameras and color fairly well in tests with the 5D3, skintones were a whole different matter. With careful exposure and WB, the FS700 can do decent color, however it's fragile for skintones: typically magenta/green 'instability'. In some lighting conditions, the FS700 is quite a challenge for skintones (in the shade at sunset is one example). Here's an example with 5D3 RAW at sunset/golden hour, then the rest is FS700 (interior). While the FS700 skintones aren't bad, the 5D3 RAW skintones are much better (golden hour light also helped). Reviewing this old footage while studying movies shot on film reminds me how much more filmic 5D3 footage looks compared to newer cameras (including the Canon Cx00 series). It makes sense why the 5D was used on so many feature films. When using the A7S or GH4, having the 5D3 around to take shots for color reference is also helpful. Models and clients always love how the 5D3 makes them look: it's helpful to understand how to make other cameras look similar.

maxotics- it's true that RAW is the most maleable in post, however even 5D3 H.264 has better skintones than the A7S and GH4. Also note the FS700, F5, F55, all shoot RAW. When RAW is compressed, it's typically wavelet-based, which won't really affect color (a slightly softer overall image at most- zero macroblocking). It's clear that the RAW data has already been shaped by the manufacturers' color science when we compare the RAW color output of all the RAW cameras. In preparation for my next project I've been working with the A7S, GH4, and 5D3 (both H.264 and RAW) to find out how to make each camera look the most filmic (#1 being pleasing skintones followed by highlight/shadow behavior similar to a film response). For closeups, the softness of the 5D3 H.264 is actually a benefit. The 5D2 and 5D3 are known for a great filmic look and superb skintones shooting H.264. If we search Shot on What for GH2,3,4, A7S, 5D etc. we see that the 5D has been used on quite a lot of films vs. the other cameras: http://shotonwhat.com/?s=5D A cool 5D3 RAW video showing landscape and skintones: Great example, the only thing missing is slomo (where the GH4 or A7S could fill in).

Tim, I tried Kholi's settings (basically PP7 with Color Mode Pro and minor tweaks) and other variants, however I'm finding PP6 with tweaks looks best for skintones in LED ~5000K light: PP6 Black Level: -7 Gamma: Cine2 Black Gamma: Middle, Level 0 Knee: Auto Color Mode: Cinema Saturation: +3 Color Phase: 0 Color Depth: R: -7 G: -1 B: 0 C: 0 M: 0 Y: -3 Detail, Level: -7 When shooting in other lighting conditions, I check a variety of picture profiles to see what the camera is doing with the available light. To make the A7S look its best, it's necessary to tweak setting for lighting conditions, including a custom WB (shot with gray card). This is also true for other cameras not shooting RAW, however Canon and Panasonic have better general purpose settings than Sony. Stock PP6 is pretty good as an all-around profile for the A7S. My tweaks were to make skin look it's best and most filmic at ~5000K (CREE LEDs) by viewing the subject live on an HDTV while making changes. I first cranked color saturation way up, then tweaked the Color Depth to make the oversaturated state look the most pleasing, then put saturation back at a practical level.

Inazuma- if it were that easy productions would use the cheapest cameras that get the job done- such as Red Epics, then fix the color in post. When the budget allows, they use ARRI cameras (there are exceptions, though interestingly most Oscar winners from last year were shot on ARRI. Looks like this year too.) as fixing Red (et al) color in post is expensive and time consuming. It turns out that getting great looking color from a camera is hard, perhaps there are patents impeding competition too. If it were as easy as color correcting in post, they could build the tech into cameras. With so many folks studying ARRI's color science, apparently reverse-engineering their technology is hard, as no one has matched ARRI yet. It's clear that both ARRI and Canon do quite a bit of special processing to make skintones look great over clinical accuracy. As an artistic tool, the immediate emotional reaction after reviewing footage can effect the edit moving forward. For those shooting mostly landscapes, plants, animals, and tests, resolution and dynamic range can be more important. When shooting people, color is by far the most important. Human beings naturally detect when skintones are off: we evolved color vision in part to detect health and emotion in skin tones.

Ebrahim- there are lots of 5D3 RAW (5D3R) vs. <insert camera here> tests out there. Here's a pretty good one comparing 5D3R to Kodak film and Red Dragon: 5D3R has fantastic skintones and a very filmic look. Skintones look better than Red Dragon (at the time of the test- Red is constantly improving their color science: skintones look better now). Keep in mind ARRI and Canon colors aren't necessarily chart accurate (though ARRI is both more accurate and produces nicer skintones). Part of the secret to good looking people/skintones results in making other scene colors off a bit. Here Shane Hurlbut prefer's Canon's C500 'golden color bias' over Alexa's color (to my eye Alexa is more accurate and could easily be made to have the 'golden' look of the C500 if desired):

Here's a 5D3 RAW handheld focus test with skintones and grass: A wide variety of grass, animals, and colors: I have been using the A7S and GH4 lately, however if I need the absolute best quality for color, 5D3 RAW is the way to go. Panasonic (including the GH4 and especially the new Varicam) also provide better color than Sony. My ranking goes something like this for color (motion pictures): Film (Kodak EXR 100T 5248), ARRI, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic (Varicam), Red (Dragon), Sony (F55 through A7S)* Sony cameras can do pleasing color, however it's not consistent and can be tricky to get skintones to look right in all but sunlight and incandescent light. With the A7S I have been making sure the colors look as good as possible in camera by carefully exposing for skintones and tweaking white balance. Trying to fix color in post is time consuming (and sometimes impossible for skintones). In cases when working fast or just needing good coverage, the A7S works well as a video camera (everything on full auto). If Canon were to release a 5D3 successor with full 1080p, 60+fps, and a modern codec (as good or better than GH4 and A7S), lots of folks would switch back for the color science. The full frame 5D has a look not captured by Canon's Cx00 line (1DC is due for upgrade too). In the meantime, if you've got the time and disk space, 5D3 14-bit RAW is here now, and is the best image for color this side of an ARRI Alexa/Amira. * The F65 as graded in Oblivion was stunningly beautiful color, detail, and very filmic. Not many folks are using the F65 due to size/weight and real-world production cost. The F35 is also popular with some indie filmmakers. In Hollywood and now Atlanta (Hollywood 2.0), ARRI is the most used camera.

- Resolution: would expect the A7S to win a chart test however both provide sufficient detail at 1080p. - Dynamic Range: A7S only for extreme cases,in practice 5D3 is more than enough, especially if using Highlight/Shadow with ACR. - Highlight and Shadow rolloff: 5D3 can be much more filmic, depending on how it's post processed. ACR can do amazing things; Resolve and mlrawviewer also look great (ProRes or DNG). - Color: no contest: 14-bit 5D3 RAW has been called 'Baby Alexa', especially for people/skintones. - Noise: A7S wins since RAW has not been denoised. 5D3 has more fixed pattern noise; sometimes 5D3 vertical stripe correction (now available in mlrawviewer) can be helpful (lower light shots). If using Neat Video (or ACR NR) the final results then lean toward 5D3 RAW. 5D3 RAW looks more filmic and organic with or without denoising. -Digital artifacts: RS is much worse on A7S (FF), 5D3 RAW is pretty much alias and moire free, A7S has some though very rare. Overall, 5D3 RAW looks more organic and 'ARRI-like'. When using a magnified 2.5x loupe on the 5D3, ML provides better focus peaking. A7S audio is cleaner than 5D3 audio (though not bad with a good preamp).

If one is willing to work with the large files and extra workflow, 5D3 14-bit RAW is far better than the A7S except for very low light. The A7S dynamic range advantage doesn't offset the superior 14-bit Canon color science, especially for people/skin.

Both images are (now) JPG, however the upper left corner of A has large macroblock artifacts, where noise is missing. These artifacts are consistent with H.26x compression, thus A looks more like video than B.

The Leone/(Kurosawa inspired ;)) 'Dollar' aka Spaghetti Westerns looked great! I too have found the GH4 with a tweaked Cinelike D profile and a soft lens (e.g. Voigtlander 25mm F.95 wide open) to look magical on the GH4 in 4K. The most filmic images have lots of detail but are also soft in the sense there are zero digital artifacts. Using a soft lens and/or a Tiffen pro-mist (et al) filter / nylon stocking really helps bring the image into unreality, away from the video look.

Nice organic soft look and colors.

We use both the A7S and 5D3 RAW. If you want the best image quality, 14-bit 5D3 RAW wins, especially for skin tone color science and post gradeability. The A7S has a much faster and easier workflow. For our 10 minute Sci-Fi short, we used mostly the A7S with picture profile 6 (Cine 2 gamma, cinema color mode). We also used a tweaked picture profile 7 (Slog2 gamma, Pro color mode). We found that picture profile 6 produced the nicest skintones and was relatively easy to use (exposure, etc.). PP6 can be further tweaked to make skintones look better in varying lighting conditions (I'll post my results after more testing). Unless shooting outside in really high dynamic range situations (or with a very bright backlight), it's probably best to skip Slog2 and use one of the Cine gammas. If you also need high quality stills, especially if shooting mostly people (skintones), you'll want to keep the 5D3. If you don't need super low light, the GH4 is a much better all around video/stills camera vs. the A7S. We purchased native lenses for the GH4, which is an added expense, and unless using something like a Voigtlander F.95, shallow DOF isn't as easy with native lenses (a Speedbooster gets you to S35 level DOF, which is plenty for filmmaking). When traveling light with no controlled lighting and shooting mostly video, I use the A7S with the Sony SEL18200 lens (FS700 kit lens).

The end explosion was rad.

Pretty cool- especially the smart phone remote control. Those looking for something right now, $58 for 1500 lumens using NPF batteries (no smart phone remote): http://www.amazon.com/Yongnuo-YN-168-Camcorder-Compatible-Temperature/dp/B00IWT0ZLU/

Hi JD- use the fastest lens you have, use full frame (vs. APS-C) if you have a stable rig/tripod (else use APS-C to reduce rolling shutter (has more noise, however)), use just a little bit of diffuse LED light, and use Neat Video to remove noise and FilmConvert (or similar) to add grain. Stock PP6 works well in low light (tweak to suit your needs, ideally at home/studio using an HDTV to see your changes live while you test).

If a film is too sharp, you notice it- skin detail is too much. If a film is too soft, you notice it- not enough detail and you're wondering if the camera / projector are in focus. When it's just right, you don't notice or think about it and enjoy the movie. Interstellar was a bit of a mess- low-dynamic range and crushed blacks, jumping between soft 70mm squarish IMAX to even softer 35mm wide aspect, and of course the muddy audio mix and excessive organ music. It's a good movie (around 2 stars out of 4) however it feels like software that bypassed QA and is full of easy-to-fix bugs. I liked The Life Aqautic (absurdly funny), the Fantastic Mr. Fox (surprisingly good), and Moonrise Kindom (more absurd fun) without paying attention to who was directing the films. It wasn't until The Grand Budapest that I went back and found those were all Wes Anderson films.

Lol maxotics on the organ comment. Also get the point regarding holding back on honest feedback after some movies depending on who you are with. Interstellar is a good movie with a few fixable problems. Maybe I'm not a Nolan fan- Inception was good but didn't live up to the hype either. I didn't realize I was a Wes Anderson fan until I saw The Grand Budapest Hotel and started looking back at his other films and found I had liked them too.

We watched Interstellar at the IMAX 70mm TCL Chinese Theater in Hollywood. Hadn't been there before (to watch a movie) and was impressed with the modern remodel while retaining a very cool ceiling and walls (beautifully elegant art). That's the good part. The audio was way too loud- painfully loud (I used the napkin trick to make earplugs after asking the QA theatre person if the audio was supposed to be that loud ("That's how the director wanted it")). The audio mix was the worst I have ever heard- dialog was impossible to comprehend in many parts. Hans Zimmer is one of my favorite composers, however the organ and low-frequency elements got old. While the IMAX 70mm projection didn't have noticeable jitter, the blacks were crushed and the colors were muted. At first I thought it was on purpose and later it would explode with color and detail for the space shots and alien worlds (didn't happen). Detail was relatively soft for 70mm sequences, and very soft for the 35mm DMR blowups. The digital 4K projectors, including on the massive (IMAX?) screen in Burbank provide much more detail, better color, and dynamic range. Part of this could be Nolan's grade, however the last 70mm IMAX I watched (Avatar) was soft as well (in Irvine). I rate sharp/soft relative to 52" HDTV at 8' playing a BluRay disk (e.g. The Last Samurai) or streaming on Apple TV (e.g. Oblivion). In other words, there's a sweet spot for detail, which 35mm film usually hits in the theater with a digital projector (decent with a 2K projector and amazing with a 4K projector). Despite the audio-visual technical problems, I rate Interstellar 2 out of 4 stars. I had read about the math and physics used to model the wormhole and blackhole sequences, and these along with the alien worlds make up for the weak story/plot/AV-presentation. I think a much shorter re-edit (down to sub 2 hours from 2:45), improved audio edit (so dialog can be heard everywhere), and a less crushed, more colorful color grade would make it a much better film and experience (bringing it up to 3 stars; can't really change the story too much with editing).

For 2014 my favorite is the The Grand Budapest Hotel. Also a great film to learn about camera work, framing, lighting, color, acting, sound, music, etc.

The interesting thing is the value of doing the comparisons between cameras, lenses, film stock, etc. and the effect for the desired emotional communication. Each element makes up the visual language structure or 'visual vocabulary' used to tell the visual part of the story. We all kind of know this intuitively; it's great to see A/B comparisons like Shane's showing us how these effects can work for the story. It would appear future Cooke's could use more blades to fix the bokeh issue though I'm not sure if the average viewer considers this a problem. Perhaps there is value for the visual vocabulary to have 'stop sign' bokeh for certain scenes.