a7r ii nothing but headaches.

[DayRaven]

Just now, Axel said:

 

Why not? We did this for XH-A1 and for EX-3, the latter having been found by a BBC engineer. Compared to which every Sony profile was really ugly. You don't need to download anything, it's just a short list of values.

That's my point, you found _every_ sony profile ugly in _every_ situation. It's not the colour profiles you have a problem with, it's what the camera is doing on a firmware/hardware level. There is no fix for you, unless sony can update their colour science, you just don't like the current way the hardware is working. That's totally fine, by the way, I am not criticising you in any way what so ever!

[tellure]

2 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

Brandon Li can do it, but it does seem awfully rare.

As a Sony A7R2 (and previously A6000) owner I agree with the common sentiment here that Sony's colors aren't as good out of the box as Canon (and the D750, from what I've seen of it).  Brandon Li does get great color in his videos shot on Sony cameras.  I wonder how much of it has to do with the lenses he uses.  Lens choice affects color and contrast a great deal of course.  I thought Balinese had great color (Sony A7S with Canon 24-105 w/Metabones EF-E adapter; Rokinon 14mm; Rokinon 24mm; Nikon AIS 50mm f/1.4. according to his Vimeo comments)

I notice the colors on my Sony / Zeiss 24mm 1.8 look much more Canon L-like than on my other non-Zeiss Sony lenses.  Here's a framegrab straight from camera with that lens, 1080p from the A6000 (pre-XAVCS update).  Dynamic range doesn't look great to me but I think the colors are pretty decent.. not quite what I used to get with L lenses on my old Canon 5D but not bad.  Definitely better than I get with my Sony 10-18mm F/4 or the Sony 50mm 1.8 OSS.

[Mattias Burling]

2 hours ago, Axel said:

 If you happen to know of anyone who made a decent custom profile, please link to it.

Kholis profile is nice.

[Oliver Daniel]

All of the current conversation regarding Sony colour science seems almost right to me. 

Having been a Sony user for years, I find the colours from their cameras (in a pleasing, accurate way) to be inferior to Canon, Nikon and Blackmagic. 

Autumn Leaves is a good baked in look, however it's vastly limited by any grading, dynamic range and highlight roll off is steep. Might work for some, not for me. 

I've had some pleasing results from Slog2 custom profiles, however the result is always sort of pastel looking. For some stuff, this works great! (attached still from recent shoot, shot on A7S II + Sigma 18-35.) I guess it depends what you're shooting.

I find the Sony's are great for dark, edgy, gritty, surreal stuff like rock music videos. But for glamour, beauty, fashion, interviews, bright colourful work... there are better options. 

[richg101]

4 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

Everyone says the Sony can produce just as nice colors. But no one seems to be doing it. 

 

I expect there are lots of finished pieces shot on Sony Alpha series where colour is to your liking, but not everyone lists the camera they used in the description.  And usually the best work never has the camera listed because it's the last thing they think to include.  I think if I ever find myself in a position where I have the time to shoot material for myself rather than to show a specific lens character (for business purposes) I'd also not include the camera used - as a result the views obtained will be for the quality of the work rather than for consumers and forum users to use for reference before making a purchase.  It so happens that if i list the camera in my descriptions it brings more hits from those looking for samples of a camera, and sells more lenses to those not aware how much impact the lens has on the image.

 

 I keep putting this up as an example.  But to me I see ZERO problems with colour here.  We have proper light, good, clear and healthy skin, and a naturally pleasing lens for skintones.  If i gave this footage to any colourist worth talking to they'd have no complaints about the image.  This sample footage is exactly why so many colourists and post experts seem to be interested in the dso lenses.  if it chimes well with real colourists then it's good enough for forum chumps like us.

 

Anyway, I'd like to see some of the so called bad footage from the thread starter before I make any more comments.  Let's see the image he got from the a7rii and the image he gets from the d750.  I know for a fact that the flaws he left the camera because of were user error and nothing to do with the camera.

 

[The Chris]

^^^beautiful job there

[Mattias Burling]

33 minutes ago, Oliver Daniel said:

I find the Sony's are great for dark, edgy, gritty, surreal stuff like rock music videos. But for glamour, beauty, fashion, interviews, bright colourful work... there are better options. 

This! You totally put words on my feelings.

[cantsin]

37 minutes ago, richg101 said:

 I keep putting this up as an example.  But to me I see ZERO problems with colour here.  We have proper light, good, clear and healthy skin, and a naturally pleasing lens for skintones.  If i gave this footage to any colourist worth talking to they'd have no complaints about the image.  This sample footage is exactly why so many colourists and post experts seem to be interested in the dso lenses.  if it chimes well with real colourists then it's good enough for forum chumps like us.

 

Anyway, I'd like to see some of the so called bad footage from the thread starter before I make any more comments.

Sorry, but I couldn't help laughing after reading your comment and then actually watching the video. This must be ungraded log footage which the filmmaker either didn't know to correct or left uncorrected to achieve an extreme visual effect. There are no blacks and whites in this video, only greys, and hence the web video might have 6Bit color depth at best....

[Mattias Burling]

1 hour ago, richg101 said:

I expect there are lots of finished pieces shot on Sony Alpha series where colour is to your liking, but not everyone lists the camera they used in the description.  

So? That doesnt change that Slog isnt exactly concidered most peoples favorite Log.

Of course there are good examples. There are good and bad examples from all cameras.

Im no colorist but its only Sony thats challenging imo. And I feel confident enough to dismiss all the "thats a user error" comments. Because its with me as with most, relative to other brands. 

Its like in Hateful 8.

"No one said the job was supposed to be easy."

"Aint nobody saying its supposed to be that hard either."

 

[richg101]

52 minutes ago, cantsin said:

Sorry, but I couldn't help laughing after reading your comment and then actually watching the video. This must be ungraded log footage which the filmmaker either didn't know to correct or left uncorrected to achieve an extreme visual effect. There are no blacks and whites in this video, only greys, and hence the web video might have 6Bit color depth at best....

Please share some material of yours that backs up the counterargument to the one I'm making.  and also read the video description before coming to conclusions.   if you can see blacks and whites in uncorrected flat material then it's serious under or over exposed.  This is correctly exposed, with a overcast sunlight so contrast is naturally low anyway. so there are no whites or blacks   Download the original file and apply a contrast adjustment and the colour looks right.  We're not talking about contrast, blacks or white.  we're discussing colour accuracy.   

this was shot auto white balance with no adjustments.  If you can;t get a good image from this original file It's your fault not the camera. 

 

[richg101]

52 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

So? That doesnt change that Slog isnt exactly concidered most peoples favorite Log.  - Most people on forums are not colourists.  A professional colourist knows the differences between log profiles and works to get the best from them.  It's not about favourites.  It;s about understanding them.  slog needs to be understood, in the same way film development needs to be understood.  just because lots of people don;t process their log files correctly (myself included) doesn't mean that when a professional works with it they also struggle. 

Of course there are good examples. There are good and bad examples from all cameras.  exactly.  therefore before discarding a camera, wouldn't it be wiser to learn how the people aceived their good examples and avoid the methods that deliver poor results?

Im no colorist but its only Sony thats challenging imo. And I feel confident enough to dismiss all the "thats a user error" comments. Because its with me as with most, relative to other brands.

This is exactly why ignorant negative forum opinion should be disregarded.  Most iof it seems to come from those who jumped from a canon or nikon they spent many years learning how to get the most from, then expected their working processes to directly translate.  Without being a colorist or an expert working with the said camera a negative opinion about any aspect of the image is worthless.  My argument is that if there are good examples of colours from sony cameras it means there are people with better understanding of how to achieve this.  rather than discarding a camera, why not learn how to get the best from it.  it's the same as all the dumb asses who bought a ursa mini and then made videos complaining they couldnt get a cinematic image without lighting!  

Its like a in Hateful 8.

"No one said the job was supposed to be easy."

"Aint nobody saying its supposed to be that hard either."  

Colourist work isn;t hard for real colourists.  thats why they are in such demand and listed so high in the credits list. 

 

 

[Mattias Burling]

10 minutes ago, richg101 said:

rather than discarding a camera, why not learn how to get the best from it

Thats my point. After years of using Slog both at home and at work. I still have trouble.
With most other cameras I only need a day or two to get settled.
And I can get the Slog to where I want, I do understand it but its a lot of work compared to all other camera brands I know. And Sony as well. Getting the FS100 to look nice takes almost no effort at all imo.

So I agree with the title of this thread.

Now, I just returned the A7ii and will probably get the a7siii, because Im not anti Sony. Im routing for them. 
Slog is just not there yet imo.

[Nikkor]

@jcs has both a good canon and a sony, maybe he could upload the original files of one of those comparisons.

[Axel]

4 hours ago, richg101 said:

 I keep putting this up as an example.

I like this clip. If it was meant to show a misty morning. But I know you shot flat.

2 hours ago, richg101 said:

Download the original file and apply a contrast adjustment and the colour looks right.

I never downloaded from Vimeo, I only sometimes saw a download button, but not in this case. Help me out (Plus user). If I had the original file, I could import it into Resolve and apply the Slog_2 lut there.

2 hours ago, richg101 said:

slog needs to be understood, in the same way film development needs to be understood.

Why? 

I only ever developed b&w film (both 35mm stills and 16mm film) privately, but I professionally made manual prints in color and b&w in the darkroom. All development processes are standardized, also the filters you need to use for the different stocks and papers, analog luts if you will. If the appropriate lut doesn't result in neutral, but perfectly rich skintones, then you will never be able to restore them even if you happen to be the world's most talented and experienced colorist. This is no wizardry.

EDIT: I only just now read your info text beneath the video:

Quote

As seen here the low contrast lens also creates a sense of greater dynamic range. 

Sony A7S in Neutral creative style (S-Log not enabled) : turn picture profile 'off' then select 'Neutral' in creative styles. and dial in: -3 contrast, 0 saturation, -3 sharpening. wb was set to auto, and shutter was auto too.

Now I'm all the more curious. 

[amsh89es335]

4 hours ago, richg101 said:

 

I expect there are lots of finished pieces shot on Sony Alpha series where colour is to your liking, but not everyone lists the camera they used in the description.  And usually the best work never has the camera listed because it's the last thing they think to include.  I think if I ever find myself in a position where I have the time to shoot material for myself rather than to show a specific lens character (for business purposes) I'd also not include the camera used - as a result the views obtained will be for the quality of the work rather than for consumers and forum users to use for reference before making a purchase.  It so happens that if i list the camera in my descriptions it brings more hits from those looking for samples of a camera, and sells more lenses to those not aware how much impact the lens has on the image.

 

 I keep putting this up as an example.  But to me I see ZERO problems with colour here.  We have proper light, good, clear and healthy skin, and a naturally pleasing lens for skintones.  If i gave this footage to any colourist worth talking to they'd have no complaints about the image.  This sample footage is exactly why so many colourists and post experts seem to be interested in the dso lenses.  if it chimes well with real colourists then it's good enough for forum chumps like us.

 

Anyway, I'd like to see some of the so called bad footage from the thread starter before I make any more comments.  Let's see the image he got from the a7rii and the image he gets from the d750.  I know for a fact that the flaws he left the camera because of were user error and nothing to do with the camera.

 

User error? The dam camera would give me error message when I try and white balance on expensive grey cards and turns full green. I would put it in 1/50 shutter speed and the slowest pans look like I put it at 1/1000.  I would use light meter to get proper exposure but you'd have to expose almost 2 full stops to get the noies level decent in daylight or studio lighting. meaning the there ISO scale and light meter are completely off. In the best setting of 4k ff the highest rolling shutter. When I was out side I use ND filters to keep my shutter angles at 180 to reduce the rolling shutter and camera judder and just look awful. When I use full frame in the highlight areas I would get strange aliasing. I used the Shogun and the video Devices pix-e5 4k recorders and there wave forums to also see exposure levels. Even the mongolia video on the first page shows all the problems I'm talking about. Go look at the movement in it. I spent countless hours going through everything over the past few months and rarely took it out to shoot because of these problems. If you can't see the problems in the Sony camera in the footage then thats fine for you. But I prefer more cinematic movement and color that's more pleaseing and most important ly reliable and isn't going to need a giant flow chart of the trade offs for ever dam setting. It's a consume based camera fastly over price. Granted the tech inside is impressive but it's half added by Sony. 

[DayRaven]

Just now, amsh89es335 said:

Even the mongolia video on the first page shows all the problems I'm talking about. Go look at the movement in it.

The Mongolia video does indeed have jittery motion, even in some very slow moving scenes.

Other users have posted scenes with similar movement without the problem. This eliminates the camera as the source of the problem, no?

[Axel]

You can't tell what was A7 and what RX10 or GoPro. Aside from that, Li doesn't seem to care. As a filmmaker he is rather an editor. He tries to get shots that fit into emotional sequences or montages (as he explains in an interview). Only video nerds like us see those things anyway.

[BenEricson]

7 hours ago, richg101 said:

Without being a colorist or an expert working with the said camera a negative opinion about any aspect of the image is worthless.

User generated feedback is about the best you can get. If a colorist told me the Sony image was great, how would that help me? 

[Axel]

Quote

Without being a colorist or an expert working with the said camera a negative opinion about any aspect of the image is worthless.

 

22 minutes ago, BenEricson said:

User generated feedback is about the best you can get. If a colorist told me the Sony image was great, how would that help me? 

It wouldn't help you, because richg101 is wrong. A log recording must be perfectly *developed* by the corresponding, official lut. If you don't see sound colors in Catalyst Browse, then they don't exist, and they can't be produced by even the most elaborate node tree . Especially if it's 8-bit you're dealing with.

[richg101]

Some people will never have the drive to persevere and succeed with things.  You find it's often these people who blame the equipment rather than finding a way to make it work and yield the best from something.  I just think it's madness to go to a vastly inferior camera (if only the fact that the lens mount is limited, let alone the poorer overall image quality) just because it has a picture profile that gives a desired result without any effort.