Blind Color Science Test

[Mako Sports]

A6400 vs XT30 - Don't spoil it for others, you might actually surprise yourself. 

[webrunner5]

Sony won on the comments and I agree. Sony has picked up the pace as of late like it or not. They are not the leader on video for no reason.

[Andrew Reid]

I haven't watched the video and probably won't ever.

Is the poster frame a complete fake?

Oh yes, thought so... he's edited it to be more extreme.

Clickbait bullshit.

[webrunner5]

Yeah there is no way they are that far apart in this day and age. Years ago, well yeah. They were both off the deep edge, maybe in their own way, good  or bad. Now, both are very good . Even Panasonic has gotten very good. I think they have caught up with Canon, maybe even surpassed them. The S1 is just to my  mind damn near perfect. I can see no reason to even grade it.

[Andrew Reid]

I don't trust Max as far as I could throw the little fucker.

[Mako Sports]

@Andrew Reid How about you do a test?

[mercer]

26 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

I don't trust Max as far as I could throw the little fucker.

Yup... his AF test, and conclusion, between the GH5, a6500 and C200 was the last video of his I watched.

[kye]

In almost every shot I thought that the best version was somewhere in-between the too-purple Sony and the too-green Fuji, and I also didn't like the skin being blown out / washed out on the Fuji.  In practical terms, if I was grading log footage and I got to either result I would think "well, I screwed that up!".

However, I'd imagine that either one would be gradable to get that right balance somewhere in-between with a few simple adjustments, so in a sense, my conclusion would be that either one is fine.  I'm sure there are differences in terms of which colour science you might prefer, but with shots that have the WB and Exposure so far off there's no way to tell which might have the edge.

Once again, this isn't a comparison of the cameras, this is a demonstration of the skill (or lack thereof) of the person performing the test.

It would be interesting if he'd used a grey-card to manually control things, but alas....

[KnightsFan]

I was split 50/50. I found it very easy to guess which was which, especially on the faces, but the Fuji was a little overexposed for my taste.

23 minutes ago, kye said:

I also didn't like the skin being blown out / washed out on the Fuji.

Exactly.

[thebrothersthre3]

Fuji had nicer skin and Sony had more accurate colors, which is pretty well known. 

When both in standard mode they look pretty close. When using the Fuji I am either shooting in Eterna or Flog. Classic Chrome is also a favorite. I think Flog colors would be a lot more pleasing than Slog as well. 

I like to set skin exposure a bit lower on the Fuji, like 60-65 ire. 

[kye]

31 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Fuji had nicer skin and Sony had more accurate colors, which is pretty well known. 

I disagree.

The Sony got the exposure of the skin tones right on a couple of shots, and the Fuji didn't nail any of them, and I think the Sony got the WB right on one or two of the shots, and I think the Fuji got the WB right on maybe one shot, but overall both were unacceptable.

The entire idea of shooting with those profiles (and not HLG or LOG) is that they don't need grading.  If a colourist created a reel with any of the shots from either camera, that would show they aren't competent.

[thebrothersthre3]

1 hour ago, kye said:

I disagree.

The Sony got the exposure of the skin tones right on a couple of shots, and the Fuji didn't nail any of them, and I think the Sony got the WB right on one or two of the shots, and I think the Fuji got the WB right on maybe one shot, but overall both were unacceptable.

The entire idea of shooting with those profiles (and not HLG or LOG) is that they don't need grading.  If a colourist created a reel with any of the shots from either camera, that would show they aren't competent.

Exposure has nothing to do with the profiles though same with white balance. If you don't white balance or expose properly you have to do it in post. 

The Sony was picking up more green reflections from the grass while the Fuji was not. Reflections are part of real life and that is why I was saying the Sony's was more accurate. 

[Shirozina]

They both look terrible - more indicative of the users failure to expose, WB and grade + poor profile choice than the inherent 'colour science' of Sony vs Fuji

[kye]

1 hour ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Exposure has nothing to do with the profiles though same with white balance. If you don't white balance or expose properly you have to do it in post. 

The Sony was picking up more green reflections from the grass while the Fuji was not. Reflections are part of real life and that is why I was saying the Sony's was more accurate. 

Technically exposure has nothing to do with profiles, but in real-life you can't look at footage that has a profile but no exposure decision, because every piece of footage you look at is a product of all the decisions that the camera makes.  If I designed a camera with the best colour science but it under-exposed everything by 5 stops, you'd call BS on my claims that it was the best colour science on the fact that the images coming out of it were rubbish, and you'd be right.

In a sense, saying 'look at the colour science in this camera' is kind of like saying 'look at how this camera does one thing and please ignore everything else' which is silly if something else that it does is rubbish.  What we should be saying is 'look at the quality of the images coming out of this camera' which is the basis of my comments.  and on that basis, neither is acceptable as a reliable final outcome.

[thebrothersthre3]

24 minutes ago, kye said:

Technically exposure has nothing to do with profiles, but in real-life you can't look at footage that has a profile but no exposure decision, because every piece of footage you look at is a product of all the decisions that the camera makes.  If I designed a camera with the best colour science but it under-exposed everything by 5 stops, you'd call BS on my claims that it was the best colour science on the fact that the images coming out of it were rubbish, and you'd be right.

In a sense, saying 'look at the colour science in this camera' is kind of like saying 'look at how this camera does one thing and please ignore everything else' which is silly if something else that it does is rubbish.  What we should be saying is 'look at the quality of the images coming out of this camera' which is the basis of my comments.  and on that basis, neither is acceptable as a reliable final outcome.

The way you phrased it was what I was addressing "The Sony got the exposure of the skin tones right" The Sony didn't it was the user. That was my point. 

To really be able to compare well you'd need to do an under/over/perfect exposure test imho

I don't think Max's test was terrible, not great either. It brought out a few good points on each of the cameras. The Fuji performed like I expected it to. 

[Andrew Reid]

10 hours ago, Mako Sports said:

@Andrew Reid How about you do a test?

I shot hours and hours of footage to create EOSHD Pro Color.

Sony's latest cameras still need it.

Fuji is superior.

This YouTube clickbait, is not even a proper test.

It's some unknown, unstated default settings, completely unoptimised.

With maybe 1 or two button presses, the entire result would change.

Max has a well known Sony bias, and I simply don't trust what he's showing here is representative. If the Fuji is too green for your liking, and you are sure Max hasn't fiddled the results like he fiddled the poster frame, you know what to do about it. There's a hue control, a white balance control, a saturation control and 8 different film simulations.

[newfoundmass]

I used to be a regular viewer of Max but yeah, over the last two or so years he has done quite a few tiny things that made me question his credibility overall, particularly in his camera comparisons. 

The blatant dishonesty with the thumbnail kinda sums it up. 

[MaxYuryev]

Wow really harsh words...

The test is not perfect, but I'm not sure what test would be. When planning for this video I had a lot of thought on how to do it, but settled on this method since it has the least user input. As you know, both the Fuji and Sony can be tweaked like crazy inside of camera, and of course in post but I chose to mess with the cameras the least. I'm not sure why you say the results are unstated or unknown. I explained the profiles, settings, and why I used them at the start. Of course the with a few presses the results would change, that why I tried not to do customize things so we can see the cameras colors instead of my tweaks. This is not a perfect test, but I did try to make it a fair one. I shot different exposures to get them to best match up since you can't just get the same exposure by matching settings. 

The first 4 tests are right out of the camera just like you would grab and shoot (other than setting the correct WB preset). The next 6 where using a flatter subdued profile. Sony is terrible with their profiles but PP6 is fairly popular and is what I use most often. It also reminds me a bit of Eterna which is also popular. With both I usually add contrast and saturation (for my taste) but for this test I wanted to keep Eterna at the default and only boosted PP6 to match up with Eterna or else the Sony would be really really flat. I think the contrast and saturation was matched up quite well, some colors pop more on the Sony and others on Fuji but the point is to compare colors and each camera has its own profiles. I could have used more profiles or added LOG, but then I don't think the results would be as accurate since LOG really depends on how you grade and the video would be really long and most people would end up not doing the test for themselves which is the point.

Yes the thumbnail was exaggerated. Unfortunately unlike having your own site on YT we are at the Marits of the algorithm and if the thumbnail is flat then your videos dies with 5K views instead of 50-100K. 

None of the tests were touched. If they would you would think I being so called "Sony biased" would make the Sony look better LOL, but I'm not in that game. Like I said at the end I prefer the fuji colors and they are definitely ahead if you're not going to do color correction/grading in post. Surprisingly a majority of people preferred the Sony look. 

I am not a Fuji hater, I have reviewed them really highly. Saying things like "If the fuji is too green... You know what to do" makes it seem like you're Fuji biased. The Sony's can be tweaked too and you have guides for that (which I purchased) thank you btw. 

Whats funny is if you see my comparisons where I say Fuji is better I am called a Fuji loved and biased. Same thing goes for the Sony videos, the Panasonic videos, and back in the day when I was praising the NX1 (which I still own 3 of btw) I was told that I'm really biased against Canon, Sony, and Panasonic for praising the AF and Colors of the NX1. Sure I have my biases as we all do (to not admit it means your a liar) but typically they are preferences and I try to point those out and why I have them, and if you watch my comparison i'll often point out the flaws of Sony and areas where other brands really excel. 

Anyways, if you would be willing to do a similar color science test I would absolutely love to see it, and if you have constructive criticism on how I could improve in future versions of this video (say a Sony vs Canon video) I would love to hear and implement it. 

[androidlad]

Apparently @MaxYuryev just joined, welcome ?

[andrew_dotdot]

15 hours ago, Shirozina said:

They both look terrible - more indicative of the users failure to expose, WB and grade + poor profile choice than the inherent 'colour science' of Sony vs Fuji

This. He called it a test for "out-of-the-box profiles" and they both looked terrible. The user who doesn't want to mess around in the menus will be lot happier with the results from an iPhone or Galaxy than with either one of these cameras.