GH4 Skin-Tone Color Jaundice? Or Urban Myth?

[maxotics]

The other thread on the forum about whether to buy GH4 or LX100 pushed me to do a test about this skin tone issues I'm having with the GH4, which I bought a few days ago.  I don't think the GH4 is a stinker, by any means, but I do believe there are color differences between it (the Live MOS sensor) and Canon/Nikon/Sony cameras (CMOS) that cannot be color corrected away--at least I can't do it.  Obviously, skin tone is subjective.  It may be "in my head" so to speak.  Anyway, I used Andrew's C1 setting and then corrected best I could in Sony Vegas 12 Pro.  I hope to do more test later, but for now, this test shows, at least to me, the "issue" (which may not be an issue to you, quite the contrary, I can understand why some would prefer the GH4).  What I can't take away from the GH4 is the 4K gives me REAL 1080 in sharpness--love that!

 

[noa]

Right from the start of your video the skintones on the gh4 look much better then the a6000, it's the a6000 that gave a weird looking washed out color and once you start colorcorrecting it's starts to look even worse but that's just my opinion.

[maxotics]

Thanks noa.  I agree the A6000 is washed out; part of that is the lower resolution.  And again, not saying one is better than the other "objectively" just to me, there is a "jaundice" look in the GH4 which bugs me and I believe many others have struggled with this too.  But if you say the GH4 looks good, then that's one vote for it's in my head  And again, I'm not saying the jaundice look is so bad anyone I know would consciously make note of it.

[Hitfabryk]

One more vote for the GH4.

 

[jase]

I fully agree with noa, maxotics. I really like your GH4 skintones.. the A6000 ones look very very artificial.

[maxotics]

Thanks for the votes. Another thing I was thinking when walking is Andrew's C1 has Hue at +2.  I'm going to put that at zero and also do another test with the GH4 at "natural" which I think looks good and might be much safer than Cine-D, at least in my hands!  Again, love this camera otherwise, so if you guys can help me get to the bottom of this I would GREATLY appreciate it!

[Guest]

​Max, don't give up hope!

Try this guy's "CBLHUE" LUT ("Yak" 3rd post down). It was made for the GH3 but it solves the GH4's well-documented orange-for-red problem pretty damn well I find: http://mail.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/6788/panasonic-g6-topic-gh2-replacement-camera/p48 It can be pretty subtle so I'd use it between 70-100% strength. I sometimes even add two!

Also, to put it bluntly ... don't use Andrew's profiles  I think he wrote that guide very early, when James Miller's settings were still de rigueur. I've based mine around this guy's settings here: http://toddnorris.postach.io/falling-in-love-with-the-gh4. Also have a read of Noam Kroll's GH4 blog post here: http://noamkroll.com/the-best-gh4-settings-for-video-why-you-shouldnt-be-tweaking-things-too-much/. In a nutshell, don't touch the master pedestal!

I keep saturation at -2 or lower, particularly when using Cine D. I find colours get ugly if they are too strong in-camera, but can be lifted in post pretty well (as long as the sensor got enough light).

The other thing you could try is some flavour of Tiffen warm diffusion filter (e.g. Warm Black Diffusion or Warm Soft FX). Personally I'd stick to the lower strengths ("1" or below) to avoid flare/glow from light sources. I've just bought a couple of Tiffen non-warm diffusion filters that are great for dealing with the OTT skin detail and slight digital sharpness of the GH4's 4K. Black Diffusion 1/2 (0.5) was my main choice. I may well try a warm version soon too.

I see the issues with GH4 skin tones - they are decent but they don't have that Canon/Nikon 'special sauce.' In general though I really like the GH4's colours (and the GX7/GM1). It's one of the main reasons I finally took the plunge and got one. I find them very pleasing (much better than G6, GH3, etc) but for the 'documentary-ish' style I gravitate toward I also like the more neutral/clinical feel relative to Canikon and Samsung colours (and of course relative to the A7S they are exceptional!). If I want a 'fuller' look, then Blackmagic is very hard to beat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Andrew Reid]

​Also, to put it bluntly ... don't use Andrew's profiles  I think he wrote that guide very early, when James Miller's settings were still de rigueur.

​Nope, quite a few months of work went into those profiles and both James and I know our stuff.

Less with the negative tone Matt, thanks.

[maxotics]

Andrew, do you think Hue at +2 in your Cine-D profile makes sense for skin-tones?  

UPDATE: I'm shooting closer to the camera's default (using Cine-D) and getting a nice image.  Still a very slight yellowness, but now I'm beginning to question is that's what I look like in the first place   Doesn't look bad, in any case.  If I accept that the colors on the GH4 are at least as good as the A6000 then the GH4 blows the A6000 image out of the water in dynamic range--that is, it better captures what the light looks like in my office.  The A6000 looks video-y in comparison.  

Noa is right, now that I have the colors close, the GH4 4K footage responds a lot better to adjustments then the A6000.  A lot more room before highlights get blown, colors more nuanced.  

I'm now leaning to the conclusion that the "yellow" stuff I see on the Internet may be from people pushing the settings too far, or not really learning how to use them properly.  Okay, so those people are me ;)

[Andrew Reid]

Max. Color is subjective. Do what the hell you like. The A6000 looks absolutely dreadful in your video and you're saying the GH4 is off? Looks fine to me. Again I won't be drawn into taking the blame for profiles or colour-paths you happen to take a dislike to, when it's purely your subjective taste at play.

Bye!

[noa]

I also find it strange that the colors from your a6000 are so far off, I have edited some a6000 footage recently (not my camera) and found the colors where very pleasing with accurate looking skintones and not as flat as in your example. It had a very distinct dslr look to it with balanced colors, might be a certain preset that was used or a specific lens, don't know as I don't own the camera. 

[graphicnatured]

The GH4 looks way better here. Especially toward the middle of the video and the "straight from cam" also. The a6000 skin tones and color casts remind me of my buddy's cheap Radioshack camcorder.

[Vesku]

Cine-D gives strange skin tones. I tested it first some time but I have later shooted with natural profile contrast reduced. Cine-D makes orange parts of skin too yellowish like a person suffering some liver desease.

[Andrew Reid]

In my GH4 book two of the three EOSHD profiles are CineLikeV based not CineLikeD  They deliver the best skintones. The CineLikeD one is a reserve one for when you want to sacrifice colour accuracy to save a shot, one that needs the most possible dynamic range, or for a shot that needs grading more than usual.

So for those who think CineLikeD gives strange skin tones (well, it's designed to be graded...) try the other two.

[Vesku]

What is the benefit of Cine-V compared to natural? I think that natural is flatter and and more "natural" or neutral or normal "life like" looking.

[Andrew Reid]

Flatter doesn't always = nicer tonality especially in an 8bit codec and skin has a lot of gentle variation in tone. Better to have a steeper curve and contrast to bring out the colour. Otherwise it can go a bit muddy and weird.

CineV with the black levels brought up is great.

CineD is a bit weird for my tastes.

[Vesku]

Flatter doesn't always = nicer tonality especially in an 8bit codec and skin has a lot of gentle variation in tone. Better to have a steeper curve and contrast to bring out the colour. Otherwise it can go a bit muddy and weird.

CineV with the black levels brought up is great.

CineD is a bit weird for my tastes.

​Thanks for tips.

[Guest]

​Less with the negative tone Matt, thanks.

​Please, do me a kindness and ban me, delete my account, block me ... whatever. I can't spend any more time here. Please.

[maxotics]

Max. Color is subjective. Do what the hell you like. The A6000 looks absolutely dreadful in your video and you're saying the GH4 is off? Looks fine to me. Again I won't be drawn into taking the blame for profiles or colour-paths you happen to take a dislike to, when it's purely your subjective taste at play.

Bye!

I'm not trying to draw you into taking the blame for anything.  I've been here for over a year.  I've bought 3 guides.  I recommend your site to other filmmakers.  Why would I want to undermine you?  I thought we were discovering this stuff together--all of us here?  This post ASKS a question.  EVEN if your profile was "wrong", so what?  What blogger should I go to instead?  I like what you have to say, Andrew.  I don't keep score.  It IS all subjective!  I took extra care to write that this is subjective and it might be "in my head".  I'm here because you're INSIGHTFUL 95% of the time.  Matt was a tad disrespectful, but I think his actions should count for something, which is, like me, he pays you a compliment every day by spending time on your site.  He's a good guy to have around, IMHO.  I think of people here as my friends.  But it's your house Andrew.  I don't want to stay anywhere where someone thinks I'm out to get them or make them look bad.  Again, if we're on a journey together I want to stay, I'M SORRY.  But if that's not what you have in mind, with this site, I respect that and will only ready our articles and keep my posts to a minimum.  

[Cinegain]

Seems like everybody is still a little hungover from all the eggnog. We get sidetracked and offended by these little things a little easily.

Actually Andrew is quite right. Color IS subjective and as long as you end up with something you like and that's what matters, then that's what matters. Atleast, creatively speaking. If you're gonna show it to the whole wide world and want to be as accurate as possible, whatever that means, then what you think 'looks nice' may indeed not be all that likeable to your general targeted audience. My feedback would be the same as the peepz above and prefer the GH4 in this particular 'test'. To my taste the A6000 footage is too bright/washed out, too desaturated/flat, too magenta/blue. In contrast, the GH4 seems a bit too saturated and tends to be rather yellow/orangy. This also isn't much of a test if you don't try to match the footage. Also you have some very mixed lighting going on which doesn't help the cause. Putting your test footage side by side is nice, but now try to make 'em the same. Shoot using comparable settings and profiles, then look at the vectorscope(w/ skintone indicator)/waveform and get 'em as close as you can. Some quick correcting like this youngster kid did in the video shown here will do (2:02+ just so happen that the base video was too yellow as well and the camera to be matched was a little too bright/washed out, much like your A6000 footage was imho). Now compare the two to see which has the slight edge. Because the GH4 and A6000 have to be much closer than I'm seeing back in your video.

Anyways, it's not an easy subject and I'm still in the process of figuring this all out myself too. Just keep playing around and try a bunch of stuff. And don't forget. Sometimes we look at our screens too long. Sometimes it helps bringing a loved one or friend in for a 2nd opinion. They might not know much about tech and parameters, but they know what they like! Also just having a good night sleep and look at it with fresh eyes in the morning helps a lot. I know it all too well that I look at something the next day and go 'dear lord, what was I thinking?'. xD