What REALLY prompted Canon suddenly to get their act together with video?

[Super8]

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Plus what is "best" can be project dependent, the color science you might pick for a cheerful romantic comedy might not be the same as your preference for a dark horror. 

No not even close.  Where did you come up with that logic?

You don't be a brand or camera that has that "dark horror" look or another brand that's "cheerful romantic comedy" look.  Everything starts with best and then you move it in the direction you want in color grading.  

[Rinad Amir]

48 minutes ago, Super8 said:

What are you filming in day time that you can't use the view finder?   How much research have you done with the issues you talk about?  That sounds like an Atomos problem. They seem to over promise and under delivery all the time.

No i cant use viewfinder in liveview its off .

What reaserch you talking about? It works in 24p 4k but it doesnt work in 60p 4k its clearly bug! the ninja v worked flawlessly with my old gh5 gh5s s1h so its clearly not atomos here.

 

[Vision]

2 hours ago, Rinad Amir said:

No i knew about the shortcoming of the 1dxmiii my reason getting it was 12bit Raw in 5.5k with Canon glorius autofocus.

Now thinking okay fuck it i cant film in day time its to bright let me whip out Ninja V for exoposure etc and thats when u get that fucking hammer! U cannot use Raw with V for exposing .

So ok let me use 4k60p than...nothing no signal! Works only in 24p and thats with official Atomos Hdmi to mini cable 2.0 

Its just rant i will gert over it😪.

 

 

Cinematographer Griffin Conway  also mention this issue... id suggest you email Canon support.

[Vision]

1 hour ago, Super8 said:

What are you filming in day time that you can't use the view finder?   How much research have you done with the issues you talk about?  That sounds like an Atomos problem. They seem to over promise and under delivery all the time.

How can you use viewfinder while the mirror is locked up during recording. 

[IronFilm]

2 hours ago, Super8 said:

What you like or what i like is subjective. That's your opinion based on what you see. That's not what I'm talking about.

 It's a fact footage that's produced by specific camera companies capture the color spectrum better than others

Can you assign a number to this, where is this number for each of Arri/Sony/Panasonic/Canon/RED/Kinefinity/ZCam/BMD/etc cameras? Or this a subjective assessment?

[thebrothersthre3]

Everything is subjective. I'd say the majority of people think Arri delivers the greatest image if you don't take resolution into account. However there are certainly people who think RED is better.

[Super8]

5 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Everything is subjective. I'd say the majority of people think Arri delivers the greatest image if you don't take resolution into account. However there are certainly people who think RED is better.

Yes what you like vs what I like is subjective, of course.  I'm talking about cameras that produce footage that's closer to "correct natural" color, i.e. this in turn means it's easier to color grade.  Everyone knows as you move up and down ISO you get color shift.  What does ARRI do? It's more consistent all around. So you have excellent color to begin with and great color latitude. 

I'm talking about pure color quality in the image.  Which cameras handle color better is not really subjective.  Which image you like is subjective.  Does that make sense?

[thebrothersthre3]

29 minutes ago, Super8 said:

Yes what you like vs what I like is subjective, of course.  I'm talking about cameras that produce footage that's closer to "correct natural" color, i.e. this in turn means it's easier to color grade.  Everyone knows as you move up and down ISO you get color shift.  What does ARRI do? It's more consistent all around. So you have excellent color to begin with and great color latitude. 

I'm talking about pure color quality in the image.  Which cameras handle color better is not really subjective.  Which image you like is subjective.  Does that make sense?

You got me there. Have you worked with enough cameras to definitively say Arri handles color best though? I was looking at some comparisons recently and I remember the Monstro and Venice holding up really well but the Arri probably still did best. 

Is Canon really number 2 in terms of keeping color consistent while pushing exposure and ISO though? 

[Super8]

14 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

You got me there. Have you worked with enough cameras to definitively say Arri handles color best though? I was looking at some comparisons recently and I remember the Monstro and Venice holding up really well but the Arri probably still did best. 

Is Canon really number 2 in terms of keeping color consistent while pushing exposure and ISO though? 

Take a look at this video from the 1DX III.  It gets good at the 00:30sec mark.

Do you know how much color grading you would have to do to get the BMP6K to get it to look like this? 

This is a perfect color test because you have so many reflective colors bouncing around on the face, on the dress and back up to the face.  For colorist this color a piece of cake to grade. 

 

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, Super8 said:

Yes what you like vs what I like is subjective, of course.  I'm talking about cameras that produce footage that's closer to "correct natural" color

But is "correct natural" color even "the best color science"?
There are for instance Nikon fanboy photographers who'll argue Nikon provides SOOC more accurate colors, while there are Canon fanboy photographers who'll argue Canon gives SOOC more aesthetically pleasing colors ("better color science").

 

2 hours ago, Super8 said:

What does ARRI do? It's more consistent all around. So you have excellent color to begin with and great color latitude. 

I'm not arguing that ARRI isn't "best" with their color science, as that is almost universally recognized (but even then, not quite fully 100%! Always will be some who disagree. So how would you prove it them?)

But the key point is how to accurately measure color science, and attach a number to it?

As it is easy enough to say ARRI, when doing say an Alexa vs a7S comparison. 

But what if you're doing a Panasonic Varicam S35 vs Canon C700?? Which has "the best color science"?

Or a Blackmagic URSA Pro vs Canon C200??

Or a RED Epic MX vs Sony FS7??

How could you prove to someone which has the "best color science"?

Or is it all just your subjective opinion vs someone else's subjective opinion?

[SteveV4D]

8 hours ago, Super8 said:

 

What not up for debate are what camera footage is easier to grade and what camera color science lines up with the most accurate pleasing color that mixes perfectly with what we see with our own eyes.

Arri does this and Canon does this the best.

 

 

Of course it's up for debate.  It's being debated here and it's being debated elsewhere.  How we each perceive colour is something that has often been debated.  How bright or accurate colour looks can depend on age, what you're use to seeing.  How do you know that the way I see red, is precisely the way you see red.  There have been images on the internet, where people have debated what colour something is, with different results from person to person.  The blue and black or white and gold dress being a famous example of how we don't always perceive colour in the same way, when shown the same image.  

Colour science and how we each perceive it is a complex issue and yet you think you have the answers.  You have an opinion, nothing more.

I agree Arri is very popular.  So is Canon.  But popularity doesn't mean a universal truth.  To me, Canon isn't accurate straight out.  Yes it gives pleasing skin tones; but often by giving them a warmth not always seen in real life.  My opinion of course.  In the Canon vs Nikon debate, I personally feel Nikon is more true to real life, whilst Canon is more pleasing to look at.  

I get you love Canon.  But its colour profile whilst considered true to life from your own personal perspective and therefore requiring less grading from yourself, is still just your opinion and not fact.

[gt3rs]

6 hours ago, Rinad Amir said:

No i cant use viewfinder in liveview its off .

What reaserch you talking about? It works in 24p 4k but it doesnt work in 60p 4k its clearly bug! the ninja v worked flawlessly with my old gh5 gh5s s1h so its clearly not atomos here.

 

Are you trying to record via the atomos or just using it as a monitor. I use quite regularly a monitor and I have no problem recoding in camera 5.5k 60fps RAW while monitoring on the external monitor "fullhd". 
If you are using it as a monitor only did you try to set the HDMI resolution on the 1Dx III to 1080p to se if it works?

[Michael Steiner]

13 hours ago, Rinad Amir said:

No i knew about the shortcoming of the 1dxmiii my reason getting it was 12bit Raw in 5.5k with Canon glorius autofocus.

Now thinking okay fuck it i cant film in day time its to bright let me whip out Ninja V for exoposure etc and thats when u get that fucking hammer! U cannot use Raw with V for exposing .

So ok let me use 4k60p than...nothing no signal! Works only in 24p and thats with official Atomos Hdmi to mini cable 2.0 

Its just rant i will gert over it😪.

 

 

Fair enough. And yes, rants are healthy! 
 

 

[KnightsFan]

13 hours ago, Super8 said:

No not even close.  Where did you come up with that logic?

You don't be a brand or camera that has that "dark horror" look or another brand that's "cheerful romantic comedy" look.  Everything starts with best and then you move it in the direction you want in color grading.  

Well this is not true. Many movies with great cinematography, including virtually everything shot on film, have their style chosen from the moment the film starts rolling, and that often determines their choice of film stock or LUT. If you are shooting anything other than generic footage, you must know your end result and how the scene will end up in order to light it. Looks aren't chosen in post.

I'm sure some productions this is the approach, but it's certainly not universal, not in cinema. What kind of productions are you saying use the approach of always stating with "accurate color" and grade from there?

[Super8]

9 hours ago, IronFilm said:

But is "correct natural" color even "the best color science"?
There are for instance Nikon fanboy photographers who'll argue Nikon provides SOOC more accurate colors, while there are Canon fanboy photographers who'll argue Canon gives SOOC more aesthetically pleasing colors ("better color science").

You start with best color over all.  Why wouldn't this be the goal?  You make it sound like you shoot with any camera and leave color correction to the colorist and just pray it comes out right?

 

 

9 hours ago, IronFilm said:

But the key point is how to accurately measure color science, and attach a number to it?

As it is easy enough to say ARRI, when doing say an Alexa vs a7S comparison. 

But what if you're doing a Panasonic Varicam S35 vs Canon C700?? Which has "the best color science"?

Or a Blackmagic URSA Pro vs Canon C200??

Or a RED Epic MX vs Sony FS7??
 

I never said I was doing a this vs that comparison.  Where did you get that from?

[Super8]

9 hours ago, IronFilm said:

How could you prove to someone which has the "best color science"?

Or is it all just your subjective opinion vs someone else's subjective opinion?

I said from a colorist stand point ARRI and Canon are the best and easiest to grade and correct.  Everyother camera footage I've worked with you're moving the color space to match ARRI and Canon. 

You didn't watch the video I posted did you?

[Super8]

45 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

Well this is not true. Many movies with great cinematography, including virtually everything shot on film, have their style chosen from the moment the film starts rolling, and that often determines their choice of film stock or LUT. If you are shooting anything other than generic footage, you must know your end result and how the scene will end up in order to light it. Looks aren't chosen in post.

I'm sure some productions this is the approach, but it's certainly not universal, not in cinema. What kind of productions are you saying use the approach of always stating with "accurate color" and grade from there?

I wasn't arguing about big production choices and the options they have and why they make them. 

Any choices made are for a artistic choice and not choosing a flawed color science.

No one chooses BlackMagic and says "They produce a really nice green cast and that's the one we're going with." 

You make comments like "accurate color" doesn't matter because it's subjective and the artist choice.  This sounds like someone defending short comings produced by brand loyalty.

[Super8]

10 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

Of course it's up for debate.  It's being debated here and it's being debated elsewhere.  How we each perceive colour is something that has often been debated.  How bright or accurate colour looks can depend on age, what you're use to seeing.  How do you know that the way I see red, is precisely the way you see red.  There have been images on the internet, where people have debated what colour something is, with different results from person to person.  The blue and black or white and gold dress being a famous example of how we don't always perceive colour in the same way, when shown the same image.  

Colour science and how we each perceive it is a complex issue and yet you think you have the answers.  You have an opinion, nothing more.

I agree Arri is very popular.  So is Canon.  But popularity doesn't mean a universal truth.  To me, Canon isn't accurate straight out.  Yes it gives pleasing skin tones; but often by giving them a warmth not always seen in real life.  My opinion of course.  In the Canon vs Nikon debate, I personally feel Nikon is more true to real life, whilst Canon is more pleasing to look at.  

I get you love Canon.  But its colour profile whilst considered true to life from your own personal perspective and therefore requiring less grading from yourself, is still just your opinion and not fact.

You don't seem to understand color and light and how it works in film and photography.  You've already thrown out this about Canon "it gives pleasing skin tones".   I've already mentioned this is not what accurate color is about. You're looking at the largest area of color in an image and making you comments about color being accurate.  

99% of all cameras produce pleasing and acceptable skin tones.  We all know you have a lot more that makes a good image or a great image.

Until you've pushed and pulled footage as a colorist you don't understand.  Colorist are artist and see and understand color differently then you do. That's what they get paid to do. 

 

 

 

[KnightsFan]

1 hour ago, Super8 said:

No one chooses BlackMagic and says "They produce a really nice green cast and that's the one we're going with."

On some shoots, that is almost precisely what happens. I've worked on projects where they shoot a scene on expired 16mm because of its feel rather than accuracy, or where we chose a profile that gave us the look we wanted while being completely inaccurate.

And yes, I've also been on shoots where they strive for 100% accuracy. Many times those projects sucked, because the people in charge were more concerned with technicalities and test charts than they were with evaluating what worked for their vision. I don't mean to say that those kinds of projects will always be bad. I'm sure you have your workflow and that it works for you--as do a lot of people. That's just been my experience on micro budget projects.

There is a huge difference between understanding the color that you are capturing, and always striving for real-world accuracy in 100% of situations. Just as any animator or CG artist who uses the same colors and tools but has no real world reference anyway.

[thebrothersthre3]

13 hours ago, Super8 said:

Take a look at this video from the 1DX III.  It gets good at the 00:30sec mark.

Do you know how much color grading you would have to do to get the BMP6K to get it to look like this? 

This is a perfect color test because you have so many reflective colors bouncing around on the face, on the dress and back up to the face.  For colorist this color a piece of cake to grade. 

 

Yes the colors in that video are very nice. Would certainly be nice to see other cameras performing in the same setting though. 

But if we are talking about consistency throughout the ISO range as well as under and over exposing(which Arri is known for keeping consistent colors when under and over exposed) this video doesn't really showcase anything. 

https://***URL not allowed***/blackmagic-pocket-cinema-camera-6k-lab-test-dynamic-range-latitude-rolling-shutter-more/

In regards to the Pocket 6k though, the tests cinema 5d did seem to indicate that the Pocket 6k has pretty nice latitude at least when under exposed. I've never underexposed the S1H to this degree but seeing as you have some experience with its latitude do you think it would fare as well as the Pocket 6k?