GH4 Skin-Tone Color Jaundice? Or Urban Myth?

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

I love how the a6000 ungraded looks much more than the gh4, way more pleasing, which proves it's all subjective.

(PS: we're discussing picture profiles here not religion, don't take it on your chest, It's nothing wrong I say I hate yours or you say mine is incorrect, it's why we're here)

[Guest]

I can't delete my account. I really do want to leave (check the Shogun thread for more).

Max, Ebrahim, Andy, Julian, Inazuma, everyone: it's been a pleasure. 

Andrew EOSHD is awesome. Good luck. I'll still read the articles but I don't want to spend any more time here and I don't trust myself not to get drawn into the forum. Please just ban me or delete my account. Really. I can't keep up the charade that this site is for filmmakers. It's not. It's just camera porn. That's fine I enjoy it - but the pretensions of it being something more have worn too thin.

[noa]

I can't delete my account. I really do want to leave

​Just stop posting, that should do it and then start your own, more userfriendly, forum. If you have anything interesting to say I'd be your first member

[Inazuma]

Cya Matt. I will keep in touch over Vimeo or something

Max did you give my LUTs a go?

The jaundice effect is not a myth but it's quite dependent on lighting and picture profile.  However I really believe Canon cameras have just as much a tendency to give skin a yellow plastic look under artificial light

BTW it's absolutely not a sensor problem. Raw photos look very natural. It's just the engine processing for photo and video. 

[fuzzynormal]

skin tone issues I'm having with the GH4

BTW, has anyone asked you what light sources you're using for these tests?  Has that been mentioned at all?

[noa]

 

 

​Anyone that has watched the video with sound doesn't need to ask because maxotics explains which light sources where used.

edit: some weird stuff going on when I post, I get quotes in my comments section that I didn't select and unable to remove.

[tupp]

Neither camera appears to have extra yellow, so you don't appear juandiced (but perhaps a little gaunt ).

 

The color you perceive might be your system/set-up.  Have you tried turning off all the lights and closing the shades?  Is there anything that is blue in color on or near your screen?

[jcs]

Hey Max- the colors are more magenta than yellow on my calibrated displays. I picked one of these up in August for $262 (price went up): http://www.amazon.com/X-Rite-EODIS3CCPP-Display-ColorChecker-Passport/dp/B007V9N65O/

If you calibrate your display(s), you'll have a better starting place for color (audience displays aren't likely calibrated, however starting with calibrated color will ensure nothing too extreme is likely when viewed on an uncalibrated display). Apple devices tend to have decent color (iPhone/iPad/MacBooks)- I check final renders on these devices for color quality.

[maxotics]

@Guant, yes that may be an issue.  But I am aware.  In any case, I can't do a real skin tone test on me.  Yuk!  If there is NO problem the camera is lying.

HI Jcs, I have calibrated my display, though using ref photos.  I have a Macbeth color checker, but it's temporarily misplaced...I hope   I was walking through BestBuy and looked at some of the 4K screens.  What horrible stuff they were showing.  I worry about a little yellow in the face?  As you say, no matter how perfect I may get the color it will be seen with all kinds of color problems.  

The test video I did was not great, but we ALL KNOW how time consuming it is to do these things.  Which is why I really appreciate what Andrew does and it pains me that I'm causing him any grief.  Still, I want to get where I want to go.  And I wanted to show something.  I am always guided by "the perfect is the enemy of the good".  So I did a test, knowing that some would say "Max sucks."  I've learned to live with that.  Fortunately, I learned a lot from this difficult process and believe, though there is a slight yellow problem, it is only 10% of what I thought it was a few days ago.  I also believe my crappy testing will help others.  To me, I'm just building on what Andrew worked on.  I wish he saw it that way, and not that any change I might make to his settings is some kind of judgment--it is NOT.  Every setting can be perfect for what someone wants to do.  I never forget it is subjective.  Okay, consider that horse beat to death

BTW, just helped a friend load Magic Lantern onto a 5D3.  I wish those things weren't so expensive.  ML continues to improve.  We shot some dual-ISO stuff.  OH if only I had 100 hour days!!!!

I don't want to see Matt go.  I don't want to leave myself.  It's up to Andrew.

 

[Cinegain]

Oh, come on. It's like you said before 'I thought we were discovering this stuff together--all of us here?'. That's true, we are! So less with the worrying!

I think what Andrew meant to say was that A + B = C in situation D, doesn't always give you the same result for situation F. Then it might be A + B = E. So settings, they're nice, but they're not absolute. It's like shooting with the same aperture, shutterspeed, ISO and WB all the time because it worked for you in one situation. You can use certain guidelines as a solid basis (as long as you use these guidelines correctly), but it's up to you and what you're trying to achieve, to apply your own insight. Much like cooking. One might like lots of chili, another person might hate it. If you're not happy with how something tastes... then go ahead and change it up and make it so you dó like it. That doesn't mean though that others will like what you've cooked up. If you like the A6000 footage you showed more than the GH4's... well... um... not sure what will get you around thinking otherwise really, but I'd just have to politely disagree.

But if you wanted to make the GH4 look like the A6000 there, I'm pretty sure you could. Just try to match 'em in-camera as close as you can by pacing through profiles, settings and values. Then in post production, just match the waveform and vectorscope (for skintones, keep an eye on the skintone indicator) and you should have 'em not far off at all.

Also, check those LUTs mentioned before to correct for the orange tones. And yeah, I bet the 5DmkIII with ML is great. But that workflow though... 100hrs days sounds nice. Or just being able to clone yourself. Of course the cloned version should have some brain alterations made to so he/you won't mind being put to work on the dirty chores by the real you, so you can focus on the more fun stuff yourself.

[jcs]

Hey Max- right on don't sweat the negative comments. If there's any truth in them, you can still learn from them though. I missed the drama however I don't think you have anything to be concerned about.

I have been doing extensive tests with the 5D3, A7S, and GH4 for up-close narrative shooting, including challenging lighting conditions (mixed lights (including from monitors)). The 5D3 does the best with the least work, however I've spent a lot of time to get good results from the A7S. Sometimes the A7S is too clean in low light- banding can be present (and adding noise/grain in post sometimes isn't enough to fix (requires masking and blurring- time consuming)).

Regarding ML RAW being time consuming: mlrawviewer (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9560.0) has come a long way. I'll do a test at some point with a real shoot, but I think batch transcoding direct from ML RAW to ProRes of only good/usable takes won't really take that much time and effort. The resulting files are very large compared to the 50Mbps A7S files, however the 14-bit RAW to 10-bit 444 (AMaZE Debayer) QuickTime files with C-Log are a fantastic starting point for grading (archival quality). Batch processing to DNG is also possible, allowing even more flexibility when needed with ACR+AE. These DNGs can also be directly edited in Premiere Pro CC (but without much control on Debayering and grading as with ACR).

For low light shots, the 5D3's noise and 14-bits (10 if using 444 ProRes via mlrawviewer) helps prevent banding and overall looks quite filmic (DNG processed with just ACR):

The A7S can have decent skintones but takes a bit more work (lots of PP Effects including Filmconvert):

 

[maxotics]

I saw that.  MLRawViewer is as nice as everyone raves.  I wish the 5D3 was cheaper.  I bought an a7 about 4 months ago and it's already dropped 40% in value, or something like that.  I expect depreciation but the Sony stuff has been worse that usual.   I always want a full-frame for photography.  But I love the EVF of the Sony A7s.  I'm so torn!

@Cinegain, I tried SO HARD to explain what I was doing.  I had a feeling that GH4 was producing yellow skin tones.  I did a crude test so we had something to look at, no matter how bad, I felt better than nothing and just my "opinion".  I tried Andrew's setting AS A STARTING point, nothing else, and was happy I had them, but somehow he felt I was doing this to undermine him.  Anyway, the more I've worked with this the more I see what JCS has been talking about for a while (and which I privately thought he was making a mountain out of a molehill)--getting good skin tones bout of H.264 cameras take some real time and effort.  I GET IT NOW!  (JCS, feel free to say 'I told you so'!) But I think it can be done and others here have given me stuff to help.  I've always known that with RAW I can get whatever I want (or as much as any camera can deliver).

What interesting to me about the two images above is they perfectly illustrate what I'm saying.  The top one is pretty yellow, but looks more natural, the bottom one looks more natural, yet is somehow a bit wrong.   It never ends!

[jcs]

Max- watch top movies (including shot on film!) with the same eye! You'll see the same thing re:colors.

It's possible to make the top image less yellow/warm (done for mood) and I suspect your monitor has a yellow/green bias. When I notice too much green etc. I recalibrate the monitor (color drifts over time).

[andrgl]

Matched skin with vectorscope. Masked foreground, adjusted background to taste. Flesh looks orange, too much blue surrounding it. Probably should've used curves. Oh well. I think investigating camera profile will make matching possible.

[jcs]

andrgl- going point regarding using the vectorscope for skintones. To do this in Premiere, it's necessary to use the Crop Effect to show just a patch of skin when using the scopes (then turn off the Crop effect when done with skin color).

Below is the 1080p version before film convert (not using scopes though). This is a tricky, low light test using a 40w incandescent bulb and LED light (much higher color temp) from an HDTV at the same time. I'm also seeing color changes (hue and saturation) in the JPG's viewed in the browser after uploading vs. in Premiere/Photoshop. I reduced saturation and uploaded it again until it looked closer to what Photoshop shows:

 

Here's the 5D3 RAW frame with a cooler color temp, note how it changes the mood/emotion of the shot:

Again with with saturation turned down to more closely match the original color before the sRGB conversion color shift when saving to JPG (Save to Web from PS): 

Notice how the background colors don't seem to change much, but how the changes to skintone color are very apparent.

[jcs]

Max- check out this shot from Gone Girl:

She's green, he's pink, however in the context of the (moving) movie you're not consciously noticing, though emotionally you are!

[maxotics]

That's about all of "Gone Girl" I want to see   I'm sure it's good, but the older I get the more I'd rather watch Fred Astaire dance and make corny jokes.  

Some of the color work I see in films is great.  But it's like zoom lenses in the 70s, many are overdoing it.  I feel the same way for steadicams and slider shooting, etc.  I just watched "Mozart in the Jungle."  I loved it, nice color work, a few mistakes here and there, but otherwise really created a good Carnegie Hall mood, both there and in the apartments.  Of course, the show is very well written, directed, acted, edited, etc.  So I probably would have enjoyed it shot on an iPhone.  

I was thinking more about what Cinegain was saying.  I think I can answer more of what my problem is.  When I go to shoot people, I want to start with a shot where they look natural--in whatever light.  I want to do it quickly and confidently.  That's why I thought, no matter how bad, the test footage shows me in that situation.  I'm setting up a camera, shooting me saying something, and then going to the editor.  As many pointed out, the a6000 was washed out. Obviously, my techniques need work. I found that the more I went to camera defaults the better I was.  The same with the GH4.  Anyway, that's what I'm after, good natural looks even BEFORE I think about mood.

I believe many have my problem because many watch the "quick and dirty" pieces I post on Vimeo.  It's closer to what they deal with too.  I have more footage to post later.  Thanks for your images JCS, now that I understand what you're saying I'm ALL EYES!

 

[Inazuma]

Hey Max I had a quick go of grading your GH4 footage to what I believe is more to your liking. Does this work for you?

a6000 original:

gh4 original:

gh4 graded:

[maxotics]

Yes, that looks nice!  Thanks JCS!  Now the GH4 looks exactly how the a6000 looked but with the extra resolution and better DR.  So you've proven it's NOT the Panasonic camera (not that many had any doubts).  I've been really busy with work lately, and it's only going to get worse this month, but I look forward to shooting more and using the LUTs and the techniques you've explained.  Thanks everyone!

While I'm here, I've been using Sony Vegas for years, but I'm now thinking I need to bite the bullet and move to Premiere (I'm on Windows).  Any thoughts, something else?  Vegas has a bug where you have to run a script to fix GH4 files on the timeline (or the video portion is 4x longer, the last 3x part just the last frame stuck).  What do you use JCS?  I also have a BMPCC.

[jcs]

Max- I used Vegas for a stereo 3D edit a few years ago. It's a nice NLE however I found too many showstopper bugs. Premiere Pro CC on both Windows and OSX works great. If using a decent GPU (currently using a GTX770 on Win64 and OSX), most coming editing and effects are real-time. It's also very stable... when pushed to the limits sometimes work-arounds are needed, but so far no showstoppers. Hitfilm 3 is also worth a look. For $300 (vs $30+/mo for Adobe Cloud) it's a full featured editor, color tool, and can also do advanced effects as needed by action/adventure/SciFi (including compositing). It's kind of like Premiere Pro and AE all in one (simplified). I tested Hitfilm 2, and it was pretty solid, however not nearly as fast as Premiere Pro for editing. It was much faster than AE for effects. Version 3 is supposed to be faster.