Color science

[stephen]

6 hours ago, wolf33d said:

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:

Sony cameras improved and slightly changed from generation to generation. And the last generation scientifically seems to have the most accurate colors. Both tests agree. Which is kind of interesting having in mind one of the main points of Tony's video was to prove color perception is subjective. After all it looks there is some objectivity and correlation with science ?

In Tony's tests and the  other test it's not clear what creative style was used. Because JPG colors change with different styles (in Sony Land) and different picture profiles for other cameras. Same for video. Guess standard was used but nobody is saying it.

For me the most interesting and revealing  part of the test is how tolerant  we are  to color variations and how difficult is to make the difference.    

[Inazuma]

Did he even mention if they were JPGs or raw? And did he only use the one sample picture???

[Mattias Burling]

7 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

This. The image at the end of the day is what counts. Charts and spec doesn't mean jack.

[stephen]

3 hours ago, Inazuma said:

Did he even mention if they were JPGs or raw? And did he only use the one sample picture???

He mentions that color science apply to JPG photo and video. RAW allows you to change colors as you like when developing. Test was for JPG photos. He also says that there were indoor scenes and outdoor scenes, so in my understanding it's not only the photo he's showing in the video. There were several photos/scenes but he’s showing only one as an example. He says nothing about the creative style / picture profile used. So assume standard was used for all cameras.

Dave Dugdale has a video comparing all Sony A7 III creative styles. With picture profiles off, standard creative style seems to be the best for skin tones in video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6VyspXsS5I

Tested it in other scenes and scenarios. Surprisingly it works well and am quite pleased with the results in most of those scenes. Dynamic range is not the best but not all scenes need it. Use standard for video quite often. So  this is one more confirmation Sony colors in last generation cameras (A7 III, A7R III) seems to be accurate in Standard style. 

[Mattias Burling]

Testing color science for jpeg makes little sense imo. Raw is what matters.

[Inazuma]

13 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Testing color science for jpeg makes little sense imo. Raw is what matters.

Your raw processor can make a huge difference to colour though. For example, Panasonic and Sony RAWS look far better in DXO PhotoLab than in Lightroom

[Mattias Burling]

It sure can, so does it for jpegs.

[stephen]

There are no colors yet in RAW. What to test then ? The color science of the developing programs or the skills of the person working with it ? For photography everybody is using RAW for serious work but yet argue about BETTER color science which affect only JPG and is different for different profiles and is subjective at the end. Better doesn't mean accurate. Better is very subjective. In this part he's right IMHO.  

For video however it's different. For those mirroless / DSLR cameras we don't have the choice of using RAW video. We still can tweak the colors but are much more limited, white balance is backed in. Tweaking the colors the way we like them is not that easy in video as to take a RAW file and fix the white balance. Getting the colors close to the final edit straight off the camera for video may save tons of time and effort. So don't agree with him when he throws video in the argument but does only test photo.

[Andrew Reid]

2 hours ago, Inazuma said:

Your raw processor can make a huge difference to colour though. For example, Panasonic and Sony RAWS look far better in DXO PhotoLab than in Lightroom

For me even the way the RAW files look on default Photoshop (ACR) settings is a factor in my decision to like that camera or find it a completely pain in the ass.

Leica M9 for instance - bang. Perfect. Barely need to touch the RAWs in Adobe Camera Raw.

Sony Raw - eh.

Honestly most photographers do simple changes. Contrast, curve maybe, saturation, that's about it. They don't go fine tuning individual hues or luma / sat curves and mess with advanced colour channel settings or profiles. They just want it quick and easy.

For me it is a complete mystery why the manufacturers cannot grasp this simple point!

Sony's RAW files look so flat when you open them. It's another stupid default setting decision.

Stephen is right above - that the colour science is now in the software and not the camera, apart from the fact you are seeing raw sensor data - so it's representative of the hardware in that sense.

And he is definitely bang on the money to say Tony throwing video into his RAW colour science (actually just a white balance test) is total nonsense and misleading bullshit.

[frontfocus]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

Honestly most photographers do simple changes. Contrast, curve maybe, saturation, that's about it

yeah. Some don't even do that. Just put VSCO or any other preset over it. And that doesn't end with amateurs, there are enough pros working this way too. 

That's a workflow I just couldn't justify to myself and customers. 

[Mattias Burling]

3 hours ago, stephen said:

 color science which affect only JPG 

I dont agree, neither does people I've spoken to that have been in charge of designing cameras color science. So lets just agree to disagree.

 

[noone]

I have mostly liked Sony colours but have never had an issue with any brand for colour though (Sony, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, Canon and Nikon ILCs used).

For stills I mostly shot jpeg with many just using RAW when it was important to me.

MY favourite camera is still the Sony A7s but it is still out of action so am shooting stills with an ancient Canon.

I almost always shoot jpegs on the Sony but have to shoot RAW only with my current old Canon as the jpegs are horrible compared to processed RAW.

That said, most of the time someone does a blind test, it seems Sony comes out on top and while the tests are almost all flawed in some way as this one might be, it is should still be noted that it still comes down to these being the results that OTHERS gave, NOT Tony and applied based on the colours that those people saw.

It isn't to say the Canon and Nikon colours were BAD, but that is what the people said alongside the others.       Had they been seen by themselves and with people told they were Canon or Nikon and I am sure people would have been more positive.

Geez, I actually think if you used Sony colours and told people they were Canon, you would get a lot more positive reactions than if you told them they were Sony colours on places like photography forums.

A lot of it comes down to Canon being the most popular cameras for many years now and people being used to Canon and people tend to like what they know.

If you have never tried  a mango, how do you know if an orange is better? (yeah lame but you know).

I dont think anyone makes any really bad colours and you can always change the settings.

[Shirozina]

My issue with Sony as a RAW stills shooter is the RAW dev apps. C1 just doesn't do a very good job at all with their colour profile unless you have perfect lighting . ACR is IME a lot better and forgiving of less than ideal lighting and they do seem to keep tweaking and updating their profiles. For all the RAW dev apps which have near endless controls for tweaking the image any way you want they lack the scopes that NLE's have to actually help you make those adjustments. It's no good saying either that a good 'colourist' should be able to use their eyes - our eyes are continually deceived and fooled by various colour 'tricks' so good scopes are essential for good grading IME. 

[thebrothersthre3]

Mainly all I'll do to adjust my video image is use the color curves tool. Crush/raise highlights/shadows and adjust the red/blue/green channels. I'll also add saturation to the entire image sometimes. Thats all I really know how to do in Vegas Pro. 

Lightroom seems to have more options but I don't usually use them, I don't really do photography outside of just for fun. 

This is why I want a good image out of camera lol. 

[Yurolov]

The proper test for photos should be how does your software of choice develop your raw files. Yes, raw files can be manipulated but the development you get from lightroom very much represents, if you are using canon, the canon look (or if you are using another manufacturer - then that manufacturer). I don't think comparing the default jpeg profile means anything because literally no one will be shooting full frame cameras like that. The program process the raw for you then you edit. I can only make soony look like canon if I know what the end point is - and I would need a canon for that. 

The people on here who actually think there is any validity to this test should actually take it: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScDnq2nCYioH628uZXG_oVevanWlAeX0w8wRPXEFlls3aRq6g/viewform

Look at how small the pics are - it is a joke.  

The bigger joke is thinking that this applies to video as well.

[kye]

21 hours ago, stephen said:

There are no colors yet in RAW.

Manufacturers design the bayer filter for their cameras, adjusting the mix and strength of various of tints in order to choose what parts of the visible and invisible spectrum hit the photo sites in the sensor.

This is part of colour science too.  Did you even watch the video?

[webrunner5]

8 hours ago, Yurolov said:

The people on here who actually think there is any validity to this test should actually take it: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScDnq2nCYioH628uZXG_oVevanWlAeX0w8wRPXEFlls3aRq6g/viewform

Look at how small the pics are - it is a joke.  

The bigger joke is thinking that this applies to video as well.

I don't see a problem with the size of the pictures, and hell I am 71 years old LoL. Sure bigger would have been nice. But they are bigger than Instagram stuff that most people look at these days. Now I am looking at them on a 30" monitor, not my cellphone. I think he did about as good a job you can do with that many different cameras.

How many people can even get their hands on all those cameras at once. Setting them on the factory settings is the only fair way you can test. 90% of everyone that buys one of those cameras never changes crap on them. Let alone shoots Raw. Not everyone in the world has the skill most of the people on here have, especially on the video side of them. Most people set it in dummy mode and away they go. And the Manufacturers all know that doing a factory reset gets the camera back to how the the average person wants the output to look like for them, or they would not have bought the camera to start with..

Auto or Program Mode what ever you want to call it these days is really pretty damn good. Most cameras now have really good WB and OOC colors. Heck I even do Auto my self at times for photos when I am in a hurry. Not far off from what I would set other than maybe aperture. Heck even Auto ISO is great now that most cameras are good at low light these days.

[TheRenaissanceMan]

If default developer colors in RAW are important to you, just switching to Capture One will be a better investment than any camera system change.

[Shirozina]

2 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

If default developer colors in RAW are important to you, just switching to Capture One will be a better investment than any camera system change.

That's not my experience at all.

[TheRenaissanceMan]

2 minutes ago, Shirozina said:

That's not my experience at all.

It was certainly mine. Giant difference in skin tones, and richer more accurate color overall. What was your experience?