Color science

[webrunner5]

OK one from the 6D and the 5D mk II. Even they have different color science and they are nearly the same era. 6D left, 5D mk II right.

 

5 minutes ago, Yehouda said:

I don't say that specifically about your exemple and Canon color science evolution. I talked about relation between sensor and lense for color rendition as a general rule.

Oh no doubt lenses have a big influence on color output. Not huge, but different. Canon lenses are slightly darker also.

[Andrew Reid]

Tony in the video has shot his hallway which is practically monochromatic.

The main differences in colour are a result not of the colour science, but of the white balance settings.

So this is not a Colour Science video. It's a White Balance test in artificial light.

The shot in the hallway he said everyone loved, because "warm" - looks YELLOW when he shows it full screen on YouTube, typical Sony style, but warm and good looking on the TV monitor behind him.

At the end he ranks the colour voting and Sony comes out on top by a wide margin, going against everything I know from direct experience making EOSHD Pro Color and shooting with almost every camera on the market, over a period of over 8 years running this site. It also seems to be confirming not just the channel's strange Sony bias which has been commented on before but the bias Tony himself pointed out of Sony users earlier in the video, which made me chuckle a bit.

Nikon and Canon come out bottom, FOR NO OTHER REASON because their white balance settings were presumably set to keep absolute white rather than to keep the ambience of the scene, which is a built-in default setting Canon/Nikon strength and always has been.

Again proving that is a test of white balance, not colour science.

He even took a page out of Max Y's book and didn't bother detailing in depth the camera settings used.

Nice try Tony.

He really is the Clickbait Emperor. Gets us talking every time.

Maybe try again, do an actual colour science test not white balance.... And don't try and pretend it's scientific.

[meudig]

The trick-question brand bias thing was interesting to say the least, but it would be outrageous to call his "study" scientific.

[Robert Collins]

26 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

At the end he ranks the colour voting and Sony comes out on top by a wide margin, going against everything I know from direct experience making EOSHD Pro Color and shooting with almost every camera on the market, over a period of over 8 years running this site. It also seems to be confirming not just the channel's strange Sony bias which has been commented on before but the bias Tony himself pointed out of Sony users earlier in the video, which made me chuckle a bit.

However, given that EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras is primarily designed to bring 'Canon colors' to 'Sony cameras' that in itself does show your inherent bias. It presumably means 'Canon colors are good' 'Sony colors are not so good' but we can make them better by adjusting them towards Canon colors.

[Andrew Reid]

Everybody knows that some people have brand loyalties. How is that new, revelatory or interesting?

3 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

However, given that EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras is primarily designed to bring 'Canon colors' to 'Sony cameras' that in itself does show your inherent bias. It presumably means 'Canon colors are good' 'Sony colors are not so good' but we can make them better by adjusting them towards Canon colors.

How the fuck is that an inherent bias? It's pure objectivity. I look at one image, and compare to another. I have videos showing it. I have sales and feedback backing it up as repeatable and provable in the field by Sony users - who have no Canon bias. To apply the fixes and the emotionally satisfying colour demonstrated by one camera system to another camera system, has nothing to do with the brand labels and everything to do with Canon's scientific process and what they do in the processing pipeline, and what Sony is doing wrong.

[wolf33d]

@Andrew Reid I think you missed the point of the video. Instead of trying to explain why his test was scientifically wrong you should see the interesting points. 

For example the fact that changing WB makes people change their mind on what is the best image. 
The fact that most movies have very strong color shifts. 
The fact that in one click you get a completely different image.

I always got great results with Cine 2/4 on Sony. I think people's debate on color science is overrated. 
It's more the ergonomics, touch screen and things like that that bother me on Sonys a lot more than the color science. 

[wolf33d]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

 

So this is not a Colour Science video. It's a White Balance test in artificial light.

Nope. Poll Includes outdoor portraits. 

“I gave 1,500 photographers a blind poll and had them pick the image with the best color in several different scenes, including portraits in different lighting and outdoor photos”

I think people should stop yelling fake news and click bait each time anything is released on internet. There is always an amount of bias, affiliate and so on somewhere. Just analyze and pick the info you need. There are multiple useful info in this test imho. 

[frontfocus]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

He even took a page out of Max Y's book and didn't bother detailing in depth the camera settings used.

the problem with such tests is, that there are way too many parameters to really compare them.

Sony shooters will say: "go for PP7" or "get EOS Pro Color, it's even better than a Canon". Canon, Nikon and other users have favorites too. I now mainly shoot Fuji and since I bought my first one 6 years ago, I have never used the Standard profile.

People have different preference. 

[fuzzynormal]

14 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

WHAT!?

What does that even mean.

It's a quote from the guy's video.  

For context:  the reasoning I was hearing from him is that if you plan to tweak your stuff for your preferred subjective artistic color then fretting about color science isn't really a big deal, as all models are decent on base color science to begin with.  His video ultimately says, with proper white balance, the color science differences between brands are rather miniscule.

I happen agree with that take --as my typical workflow involves tweaking to my preferences on almost every single shot anyway.  If something looks off to me I change it.  It's just my workflow, you know?  I also typically work with media from multiple cameras.  Making them match has never been a big issue.  Maybe because I'm not that hung up about truly accurate color?  I dunno, can only speak for myself here.  

For sure though, if you want something appeals to you straight outta the box and minimize post grading, then you absolutely should evaluate what the brands offer with their color profiles, judge what you like, and let that guide your purchase choices.

It's just my opinion that the whole idea of color-science is slightly overblown and a technicality that too many enthusiasts get hung up on --rather than just getting out there and making stuff.  I mean, I like playing around with the tech side of things too, but I also have to be holistic in my approach to work because I'm a singular person doing the job from start to finish.  If someone has a job (or the personality) where they concentrate on the technical minutia, then by all means embrace those details.

 

[Andrew Reid]

3 hours ago, wolf33d said:

@Andrew Reid I think you missed the point of the video. Instead of trying to explain why his test was scientifically wrong you should see the interesting points. 

For example the fact that changing WB makes people change their mind on what is the best image. 
The fact that most movies have very strong color shifts. 
The fact that in one click you get a completely different image.

I always got great results with Cine 2/4 on Sony. I think people's debate on color science is overrated. 
It's more the ergonomics, touch screen and things like that that bother me on Sonys a lot more than the color science. 

Yes but the conclusion of the video I have a problem with. It's simply wrong. Sony's colour science is according to the video far better and a crowd pleaser, vs the competition like Canon, Nikon and Fuji. I know from my own eyes this is simply bollocks.

Yes changing WB makes people change their mind on what is the best image, no shit! This is just filmmaking basics. Speaking not of white balance settings on the camera for a moment but looking at it creatively, Game of Thrones has a cool palette, other shows have a warm grade, and so on... It is supposed to match the scene and the content. In cases where a warmer look is necessary like in natural light to maintain the ambience of incandescent light, the Sony fell flat. You have no idea how many months I spent correcting this with custom WB presets in EOSHD Pro Colour and special colour settings to overcome Sony's sterile white balance handling and poor handling of ambience.

Yes movies have strong colour grading, who'd have thought?! That's all part of the creative process. We are not talking about lab technicians. They are professional colourists.

All this matters a lot.

So the debate on colour science is not overrated.

I don't agree with Tony's conclusion - either the outcome of the vote, or the underlying "colour science doesn't matter, and it's easy to change with a click of a button" bullshit.

44 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

It's a quote from the guy's video.  

For context:  the reasoning I was hearing from him is that if you plan to tweak your stuff for your preferred subjective artistic color then fretting about color science isn't really a big deal, as all models are decent on base color science to begin with.  His video ultimately says, with proper white balance, the color science differences between brands are rather miniscule.

I happen agree with that take --as my typical workflow involves tweaking to my preferences on almost every single shot anyway.  If something looks off to me I change it.

No, a lot of people want straight out of the camera satisfaction and they don't have the time nor the skillset to go off and do advanced colour correction.

That's just us, who can afford the time to "correct every shot".

It's pretty glib of Tony saying, if you don't like Sony's colour "just change it" (I guess the raw stills he is referring to)

For a start it is not RAW when it comes to video. It's baked into the H.264 files.

Even if you shoot S-LOG, S-Gamut is baked in and comes out in the grade.

People have spent hours trying to get S-Gamut in post to look the way they want.

I don't think Tony has even ever graded S-LOG? So how can he suddenly be an authority on colour science?

You guys need to get off YOUTUBE. Put the tablets away.

[fuzzynormal]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

No, a lot of people want straight out of the camera satisfaction and they don't have the time nor the skillset to go off and do advanced colour correction.

Oh, I agree and qualified my comment with that exact sentiment.

And, as I say, I'm not too wrapped up in the color-science thing, but other people are.  Not  really saying there's a wrong or right, just giving my anecdotal experiences.  Take it with grains of salt.  What's okay for me might not be for anyone else.  I sure don't spend hours fretting about S-Gamut in post, for instance.  I'm very much an "let's eyeball this thing" and then move onto the next shot.

Any true colorist watching me work would, I'm sure, begin to weep within a few minutes.

(and any average viewer watching my finished product would/should never care)

[Castorp]

It's a BS video. For so many reasons. And the whole "raw shooters can correct to whatever they want" isn't really true either. It's very hard to know what I'm going for if I don't have a reference. The jpeg engines sometimes do stuff I didn't knew was possible and would take crazy amounts of work and luminosity masks and god knows what to get similar results. 

[stephen]

IMHO Tony actually did a very good test/survey. Blind tests are rare. Certain parts may be questionable but general conclusions are valid IMHO and quite revealing:
1. Color perception and preferences are subjective. Both for professionals and nonprofessional viewers. 
2. Brand loyalty skew personal opinions even more. 
3. Slight variations of colors usually gets unnoticed by the general public(viewers) and even by professionals. We start to see the differences when we compare different cameras / images. Quite true IMHO.

While there is definitely science in colors, personal preferences rules at the end. There is nothing scientific in personal preferences. So saying that camera A has better color science than camera B is somewhat wrong, when we discover that BETTER is subjective. Better color does not mean scientifically correct colors it just means colors we personally like and prefer. A blind test just prove how off those personal preferences may be. So it's correct to say better colors FOR ME.

Does it means we do not need LUTs or adjusting colors or use Andrew's EOS Pro Colors settings? Are color adjustments really just one click of the button away? Of course not. Getting the colors we want or like may be quite time consuming in both photo and video. If we like the colors of our videos strait off the camera and want to leave them like this, then fine. If we prefer the colors of camera A better than camera B, and have camera A then lucky us. But if we don’t like the colors straight off the camera or want some special colors and/or vision then we have to tweak them. In video this can be quite laborious and time consuming. Color correction and grading is a well payed profession. If somebody already have presets that tweak, adjust the colors the way we like it, well bring them on. He did the laborious part and those presets will save us quite a lot of time and work in post.

So Tony is right about the subjectivity but wrong when saying one click and white balance will do it for most of us. Unfortunately not that easy and simple. 
IMHO he gave the example of white balance adjustment to show that all cameras have good RAW images to start with and differences are not that big.  

[thebrothersthre3]

Gotta agree with Andrew here. 

Its especially true if we are talking 8 bit H264 rather then 14 bit RAW. 
 

[stephen]

And yes agree with Andrew there is quite difference between photo and video on those cameras. Photo has RAW, so we can adjust white balance in post. Video has white balance baked in.

Tony's example of fixing white balance is valid only for photo. And the whole test/survey is for photo. He throws in the bag video as well, but it is different and has to be treated and commented differently. So he’s wrong on this account too.

[Castorp]

I make high quality prints with professional printers and often collaborate on the final file with expert staff. The screens and whole image chain are of course expertly calibrated and the equipment is top of the line. Even then the result is not revealed until I look at actual test strips/prints.

A large top quality print reveal the image quality to a different degree than a screen. Doesn’t matter how good the screen is. 

For stills, I don’t think the test is showing much at all. If we’re discussing image quality of photographs I think it’s important to look at prints. 

[Mako Sports]

7 hours ago, wolf33d said:

@Andrew Reid
I always got great results with Cine 2/4 on Sony. I think people's debate on color science is overrated. 
It's more the ergonomics, touch screen and things like that that bother me on Sonys a lot more than the color science.  

 

Cine 2 is honestly the goat. That profile plus the  "cinema" color space always gives me good results.

[wolf33d]

4 hours ago, stephen said:

IMHO Tony actually did a very good test/survey. Blind tests are rare. Certain parts may be questionable but general conclusions are valid IMHO and quite revealing:
1. Color perception and preferences are subjective. Both for professionals and nonprofessional viewers. 
2. Brand loyalty skew personal opinions even more. 
3. Slight variations of colors usually gets unnoticed by the general public(viewers) and even by professionals. We start to see the differences when we compare different cameras / images. Quite true IMHO.

This was my point too. The video has good points. Not everything but some good points. 

1 hour ago, Mako Sports said:

Cine 2 is honestly the goat. That profile plus the  "cinema" color space always gives me good results.

Me too. My result with a 5 min grading in total (not per shot) in my Cuba video proves it. 

 

Now guys and @Andrew Reid what about this test? 

"PDN (Photo District News) did a more scientific test for color accuracy using the X-Rite ColorChecker SG color target and measuring the results using a calibrated spectrophotometer. This objective test backs up the subjective testing by Tony.

Sony cameras proved to be the most accurate at reproducing the color chips of the color target with the A7III at the top of the heap closely followed in second place by the A7RIII which tied with the Fuji X-E3 and Leica CL. The Sony A9 was third. The first Canon (M50) came in fifth with the 6DM2 finishing seventh. Read the full review at this link:"

https://www.pdnonline.com/gear/cameras/the-best-cameras-for-color-reproduction-ranked/

 

[Andrew Reid]

Seen it before.

Part of the problem with Sony is that their colour matches a chart but looks clinical on real-world subjects.

We are talking about video by the way, not RAW where the colour processing is in post.

In warm sunlight, the Sony too often looks dead.

Canon 1D X JPEG:

Sony A7S II JPEG:

On some screens this will vary. The Canon might look like it has too much magenta and red in the skin tones. That's the display that's at fault or the browser, not the camera file.

The Sony looks dead no matter what you view it on

[Shirozina]

5 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Seen it before.

Part of the problem with Sony is that their colour matches a chart but looks clinical on real-world subjects.

We are talking about video by the way, not RAW where the colour processing is in post.

In warm sunlight, the Sony too often looks dead.

Canon 1D X JPEG:

Sony A7S II JPEG:

On some screens this will vary. The Canon might look like it has too much magenta and red in the skin tones. That's the display that's at fault or the browser, not the camera file.

The Sony looks dead no matter what you view it on

There is obviously a different WB between these 2 pictures and lens flare on the Canon shot giving a nice warm bloom to the image (what are the picture profile settings). BTW - I prefer the Sony as the colour looks more realistic. I'd always take accurate colour over 'nice' colour any day as it's easier to make accurate colour nice with a simple grade but much more difficult to make 'nice' colour accurate.