fuzzynormal

​I think this has always been my intuition as well, which is why I was curious why there's so much on-line hang-wringing about skin-tone and posed the question to begin with. Ultimately, I'm of the mind to chalk it it to gear-heads being gear-heads. I see the same rabbit hole attitudes in the automotive forums I visit. Dudes are spending their money of stuff so they'll overanalyze and focus their attention on intricate of details of the thing they just bought rather than have a holistic outlook. Fretting about how to wring .2 more horsepower out of their latest carburetor rather than, you know, actually learning how to drive fast around a corner. That narrow focus does work on large collaborative things where one is required to specialize, but might be counter-productive on things less so. I say this because I'm just as guilty of gear fetish as anyone.

If you're pretty good at shooting stills (looks like you appreciate light) and just transitioning to motion pictures, I think the option of having 5-axis stabilization is actually a valuable tool. I found it incredibly nice to be able to grab steady video shots while spontaneously holding the camera in awkward positions...and not have to fret about the video being distractingly shaky. In that sense, it's a lot like just "grabbing a shot" when doing stills. Want to hold the camera high above your head with one hand while standing on a chair? You can make it work quickly and easily. That's not to be underestimated. I just wish Olympus' video was a bit more advanced as my main client is slightly more demanding than what Olympus video delivers, but even if it less than most, it's still quite decent. I used one of their cams for a month on the road and found it a lot of fun. That's saying something. For me, it's a camera that encouraged creativity by offering the ability to quickly get shots I would't get otherwise. Not sure if you've considered that aspect of motion pictures, but it can be a great tool depending on how and what you're trying to shoot. A lot of people go on and on ...and on and on... about sensor quality in forums such as these that focus almost exclusively on the technology --it's almost as if we forget around here that there are so many various aspects of motion picture production that go into making good video and it's not about having the greatest sensor. Not even close, in my opinion. Andrew Reid has even posted examples here of a young filmmaker working with a 5 year old Canon ti camera who's films are more interesting and visually engaging than the most advanced production companies with the latest and greatest gear. Meanwhile many of us gripe about the indignity of having 12 stops of dynamic range rather than 13 as if our professional lives depend on it. As I'm sure you're well aware of, since you're making great photos with decent but not great consumer gear, a successful image is NOT always about the sensor IQ. However, if the best available IQ on a budget is a top priority for you then, yeah, you'd probably look elsewhere. I have a GX7 I've been using a lot. I like it. I dig small cams. (man, I'm on a coffee rant...) Aside from that, what's with your shop? Not allowing you to shoot in store with your own SD card? That's kind of obnoxious.

I think if you're still developing I'd recommend a cheap M43 Panasonic body with a set of used M43 fast prime lenses; 12, 24, & 45mm. Small, affordable, and will cover just about everything you might want to shoot except for extreme wide and long. Good for video and stills. I believe primes are better for learning how to shoot. Zooms allow you to develop too many bad habits at the beginning. Or, maybe an Olympus body; depending if you think the 5-axis stabilization is a big value for whatever you're doing. ​

Just about and camera body on the market can take exceptional stills these days...if you have the skill to do so I suggest you analyze what your needs are for film/stills and then adjust from there.

What are you most wanting to film? There are a lot of great options. Not sure what your requirements are, but maybe a Olympus might be a good fit, depending?

I should note that I watch a fair share of Japanese TV and their productions have been HFR HD for quite awhile. NHK certainly doesn't worry about this particular issue. On the other hand, they typically don't do a lot of hyper-editing and fast camera moves.

I still think for us jack-of-all-trades (masters of none) shooting with >$1k cams, it's okay to put accurate skin tone a bit down on the list of priorities. If we're close, that's fine. Should we put skin tone above production design, writing, directing, or editing for example? I'd rather take an opportunity to implement an incredible story in a slightly technical flawed way than to implement a flawed idea in a technically incredible way. That's just my approach at the level I'm at. As mentioned, some folks have the luxury or inclination to focus on the intricacies. You know that ridiculous saying, "It's above my pay grade?" Well...

If directors want to go to HFR I think they have to be extremely disciplined how they move their camera in this visual space. I feel HFR can be exploited, but in order to do so you have to appreciate how humans utilize their own eyesight. Even though our eyesight has a biological "shutter speed" well above 48fps, we also FOCUS our attention on specific objects in our personal field of view. All else, according to our brain, falls out of focus, so to speak. I really think that we're evolutionarily wired to appreciate a motion picture frame with a strong focusable center of interest. Take that away and you're asking for trouble. AKA: This Hobbit nonsense. Ultimately it's just poorly directed. The sensational motion and hyper-kinetictivity is so incredibly abnormal it's a visual liability. Again, any director going this route better be extremely wary of the technology they wield. Jackson just went for it all as he had that capability at his disposal...and it bit him in the ass. Here's something to think about, do the very limitations of 24fps cinema supports our visual experience? It may be counterintuitive to think so, but consider how a film camera has to stay below a certain pan speed to avoid judder. Couldn't that visual constraint actually reinforce our biological expectations? Obviously our sight shifts much quicker than a slow 24fps pan, right? But, we also "defocus" our perception as we rapidly shift our field of view. Perhaps when you DON'T do that in cinema it's an uncomfortable assault on our senses. Longer takes, slower camera movement, no rapid editing, and a bit of shallow DOF. This combined with HFR might make a more tolerable experience. The whole biological and psychological human visuality needs to be more considered. It's going to take a serious re-think of the cinematography approach, I believe. That said, I think maybe a good compromise would be to shoot 48fps with a 0º shutter. You'd get the benefit of object motion blur combined with a high frame rate. Also, you'd create a source file that would be easily down converted into the traditional medium for those that prefer it. I'd encourage any of you PAL shooters to give that set-up a go with 50fps and a 50 shutter. Then convert to 25fps and see how it plays.

I still contend that people mistakenly conflate the visual nature of HFR with high resolution. High resolution has been with us in cinema for over a century. Gone With The Wind is still incredible, for instance. However, the thing that really really bugs me about 48fps high frame rate is that when it's combined with a high shutter of around 100/sec you're taking away pretty much all the motion blur on edges of objects moving through the frame. This more than anything causes perceived high resolution as every freaking thing in the focused frame is tack sharp. It's information overload.

​No no, I should apologize, but honestly in this context "pedantic" is not necessarily a pejorative. Specializing deeply in certain skills is part of the trade as a DP. Knowing the intricacies is important. I get that. As I say, I'm a guy that just does corporate videos mostly. I don't have a body of work that needs such finesse with color, so I'm ignorant about the heavy details...but I'm not sure if I want to actually worry too much about it, if that's understandable. My sensibilities are elsewhere. As you can see from my writing above, I'm sort of content that my stuff is good enough (for better or worse). Thanks for offering your perspective. It's enlightening.

I'm actually currently working on a short documentary featuring 11 interviews. I'm analyzing my GX7 footage a lot. I am color grading it. To my eye it reads true. I'm not having too much of a problem with it. The only one that has issues is an interview under tungsten light that was slightly underexposed. Aside from that, look at the images I posted from True Grit. Those stills are lifted from scenes that last numerous minutes. Are people biologically sensitive and put off by those colors? After all, they're not "natural."​ I'm not saying it's not perfectly acceptable for people to pursue their ideal colors, I'm just having a hard time understanding why for some it seems to be priority number one. Now, all that being said, I do like Canon color, but I also cross cut many projects with Canon and Panasonic --and I can always pull them into line in post.

Well, I'm not running in the upper echelon of clientele so I suppose "skin tone" is a possible all important tick-box for hard core specialists in choosing a camera for a gig. As I say, I'm small potatoes, so from my perspective it seems like a lot of navel gazing rationalization. I'm not sure I agree that we should be so pedantic, but I'm speaking from ignorance here. I never had a client balk at my gear selection. Still, seems like a simple nuanced application of good color grading can create pleasing tones regardless --so I do question if it's as important as some assert it is. Also, the lens is a huge factor in color rendition. When I hear people bash the Sony sensors I tend to wonder exactly what glass they're using or what they are (or are not) doing to their image in post.

No, not my work, just examples of color grading that make "ideal skin tone" seem somewhat irrelevant. My point is this: I'm not looking for a camera that offers the best skin tone. I'm saying all modern cameras are pretty good and with color grading you can pull it into your preference anyway. If you agree with that assertion, then why worry so much about skin tone to begin with? If you disagree with that premise I'm genuinely interested why. I accept that I may be off the mark here. As for my videos, there's nothing in there where I'm upset with skin tone color.

​That's the thing. I'm not terribly particular about it. I'm perfectly comfortable making someone look blue or orange if I feel it helps tell a story and assists ambience. I'm all about context of the narrative. My color grading can get pretty wild, so I'm curious why others are such sticklers for what they imagine is an ideal. If/when a client wants something clean, I keep it clean --but no matter what camera I use they all offer images that never stray too far to create something nice, regardless. I very rarely let a shot go through post without a tweak on it.

Curious as to why it seems to be such a high priority with some folks. Myself, I do low level corporate vids for a living and have used all sorts of cameras. I can't say I've been too bothered with any brand regarding skin color. If it looks off I adjust in post. And if I'm doing fictional narrative stuff there are no rules, so I push and pull my grades in all sorts of fun directions; as long as my white balance was on target I just never worried about what the skin tones are doing that much… So yeah, if y'all have any justifications I'd sincerely love to hear why this particular aspect makes a big difference for you. Thanks!

Film a one minute short with two people in one room and one small practical light source. You can't film faces.

​Just look really really hard at it. Also, do the skin tones look a little off to you?

.

Who you gonna believe? Maths or your lying eyes? Just look.

BTW, has anyone asked you what light sources you're using for these tests? Has that been mentioned at all?

Yeah, I appreciate the quip... But I'me not sure ​Yuri would actually agree Mid 20th century rocket science is a bit different than miniature electronics. And , when it comes to rockets (which are super cool) they were 1. designed and developed mostly by Germans. (and since I've already broken Godwin's law earlier in this thread I might as well point out that it was the Nazis that pushed German scientists hard to do it) ...and 2. space exploration was developed and persued as part of a high priority post wwII arms race. I'm not convinced that making electronic cameras with 18 stops of dynamic range for the bourgeois would have ever been a huge priority for communists. BTW, I only watched 10 minutes of "The Interview" so far. Hasn't exactly been interesting enough to hold my attention.

​cool. Upload the camera footage file and we'll take a look at it

Yeah, upload the file straight off the camera's card. Let's have a look.

Yeah, it's low bit rate compression. If you shot a bunch of tree leaves blowing in the wind you'd get a similar result.

​What lens are you using?