Color - SOOC vs. LUTs/Grading

[ac6000cw]

6 hours ago, mercer said:

No offense to the photographer of that shot, but that looks like it could have been shot with any standard profile from a camcorder in auto mode.

According to the EXIF data on Flickr, the still was taken with a Canon EOS 1100D (Rebel T3 in the US). I think it is a little over-saturated (the reds in particular), but is otherwise a reasonably colour accurate photo of 'Mayflower' in that time period. Here is another photo of it taken with a Canon EOS 40D by a different photographer - https://www.flickr.com/photos/125085162@N06/21175458306/

There are a few colour stills on Flickr taken by Paul Cook at the same event with the 5D Mark III, which I think look nicer than the video (generally more vibrant, and with nicer skin tones) - https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulwilliamcook/albums/72157648396375737/

But other than me not liking the colour grade (which is an artistic choice anyway) I agree the video looks good.

 

 

[SRV1981]

eva1 looks way better here to my eye. Any thought why that is? Can that look be had in a mirrorless smaller body camera ?

[kye]

14 hours ago, ac6000cw said:

I really dislike the colour grade in that video - low-contrast and de-saturated with (to me) a grey-green cast. It sucks all the life out of the event it's recording... How do you judge the colour capability of the camera itself from that?

This is a fundamental split in the camera communities - those who like the look of cinema and those that like the look of video.

Yes, the video that @mercer posted was low-contrast / desaturated / greenish.  That's the look.  It's also the look of a great many feature films and high budget TV shows.

Notice the similar colour palette?  This one even includes it 🙂 

Some consider it THE look of cinema.

You might be thinking that you're interested in a neutral look because you aren't making action / thriller / horror movies, and that's fair, so where is the look with the natural skin tones?

To that, I ask, which look with natural skin tones are you talking about?

But, you meant a neutral look!  Sorry.

You must mean an image that has only been technically converted to a correct image...  like these.

 

But these don't look the same either  ...and yet they are shot with neutral lighting by professionals and even have test charts in them to ensure that the image is correctly exposed and balanced etc - these are literally test images!  If these images don't look the same then how the hell can any image be correct?

This is what I'm saying.     There is no neutral image.

The lighting angle changes the look.

The lighting ratio impacts the look.

Time of day impacts the look.

High key vs low key.

Just kidding!

Lenses impact the look.

Filters etc etc.

This is why I emphasise working in post.

Take the above image for example.  A little work in post, and voila - now you have a "more accurate" match!

Or what if you over exposed your camera drastically?  No problem if you know what to do in post..

(Source: https://cinematography.net/alexa-over/alexa-skin-over.html)

This is why trying to get the look you want by only looking at the camera and ignoring the other aspects, when they can completely override the differences between cameras is misguided.

Hell, with a simple transform you can turn one capable camera into another anyway:

(credit: Miguel Santana ILM)

I truly do understand the temptation of the camera body.  It has the most buttons, it's the thing that everything connects to, it's the complicated thing that everyone talks about, it costs lots of money etc.  They're also super cool, absolutely.

But they're not the defining object when creating the look, even if you literally buy one with a lens attached and only shoot in a 709 profile, then you're still shooting things that look different based on the lighting and composition and how you expose etc etc.

But what if you just want to shoot what is there and have it look nice.  Absolutely.  This is literally what I do.  I shoot travel with my GX85 and mostly a single lens, and it only shoots in rec709 profiles.

However, because of all the above factors, the footage will vary from shot to shot.  So in order to make it more uniform in the edit I learned to colour grade.  Let alone the absolutely horrific lighting that is around...  

Take this image I've shared previously:

Look at the sleeve of the jumper - it is a single colour - the lights are just very low-cost LEDs and although they looked white in person they are very different hues to the cameras eye.  Notice how that yellow is bleeding into his hand near his wrist and also into the lower part of the ladies face?

If you want good skin-tones - oh boy you better hope that you get good lighting!  Otherwise, colour grading is there to fix what your camera did, rather than ruin it.  Getting a neutral 709 video-style look with lighting like this would require a huge amount of work in post.

That's why these "which camera to buy to get good skin tones" always have a silent assumption before the question that say "assuming the world doesn't exist or if it did exist then assume it's perfect", which obviously isn't a very useful assumption.

[SRV1981]

19 minutes ago, kye said:

This is a fundamental split in the camera communities - those who like the look of cinema and those that like the look of video.

Yes, the video that @mercer posted was low-contrast / desaturated / greenish.  That's the look.  It's also the look of a great many feature films and high budget TV shows.

Notice the similar colour palette?  This one even includes it 🙂 

Some consider it THE look of cinema.

You might be thinking that you're interested in a neutral look because you aren't making action / thriller / horror movies, and that's fair, so where is the look with the natural skin tones?

To that, I ask, which look with natural skin tones are you talking about?

But, you meant a neutral look!  Sorry.

You must mean an image that has only been technically converted to a correct image...  like these.

 

But these don't look the same either  ...and yet they are shot with neutral lighting by professionals and even have test charts in them to ensure that the image is correctly exposed and balanced etc - these are literally test images!  If these images don't look the same then how the hell can any image be correct?

This is what I'm saying.     There is no neutral image.

The lighting angle changes the look.

The lighting ratio impacts the look.

Time of day impacts the look.

High key vs low key.

Just kidding!

Lenses impact the look.

Filters etc etc.

This is why I emphasise working in post.

Take the above image for example.  A little work in post, and voila - now you have a "more accurate" match!

Or what if you over exposed your camera drastically?  No problem if you know what to do in post..

(Source: https://cinematography.net/alexa-over/alexa-skin-over.html)

This is why trying to get the look you want by only looking at the camera and ignoring the other aspects, when they can completely override the differences between cameras is misguided.

Hell, with a simple transform you can turn one capable camera into another anyway:

(credit: Miguel Santana ILM)

I truly do understand the temptation of the camera body.  It has the most buttons, it's the thing that everything connects to, it's the complicated thing that everyone talks about, it costs lots of money etc.  They're also super cool, absolutely.

But they're not the defining object when creating the look, even if you literally buy one with a lens attached and only shoot in a 709 profile, then you're still shooting things that look different based on the lighting and composition and how you expose etc etc.

But what if you just want to shoot what is there and have it look nice.  Absolutely.  This is literally what I do.  I shoot travel with my GX85 and mostly a single lens, and it only shoots in rec709 profiles.

However, because of all the above factors, the footage will vary from shot to shot.  So in order to make it more uniform in the edit I learned to colour grade.  Let alone the absolutely horrific lighting that is around...  

Take this image I've shared previously:

Look at the sleeve of the jumper - it is a single colour - the lights are just very low-cost LEDs and although they looked white in person they are very different hues to the cameras eye.  Notice how that yellow is bleeding into his hand near his wrist and also into the lower part of the ladies face?

If you want good skin-tones - oh boy you better hope that you get good lighting!  Otherwise, colour grading is there to fix what your camera did, rather than ruin it.  Getting a neutral 709 video-style look with lighting like this would require a huge amount of work in post.

That's why these "which camera to buy to get good skin tones" always have a silent assumption before the question that say "assuming the world doesn't exist or if it did exist then assume it's perfect", which obviously isn't a very useful assumption.

Clearly great points. But I think it’s still missing the mark, given that the user in my scenario wants a quick turn around in many lighting conditions outside of our control what sensors currently produce an image you love with minimal effort. 
 

the gx85 image is lovely but also the kids skin looks deathly anemic. Another sensor and processor would.l render that scene differently.  That’s the conversation 

[SRV1981]

I also love some movies and shows despite not liking their skintones or color FYI

[kye]

3 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Clearly great points. But I think it’s still missing the mark, given that the user in my scenario wants a quick turn around in many lighting conditions outside of our control what sensors currently produce an image you love with minimal effort. 
 

the gx85 image is lovely but also the kids skin looks deathly anemic. Another sensor and processor would.l render that scene differently.  That’s the conversation 

The image I posted with the bad lighting was GH5, shooting LOG, with a standard conversion to 709.

The GH5 is a huge capable camera, the issue was the lighting not the camera.

[kye]

13 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Clearly great points. But I think it’s still missing the mark, given that the user in my scenario wants a quick turn around in many lighting conditions outside of our control what sensors currently produce an image you love with minimal effort. 

Sure.

You just have to hope that the world is perfect and doesn't give you mixed lighting.  That every shot you take has the same lighting ratio.  That your camera doesn't have metameric failure as the WB changes to match the lighting changes.  Etc Etc.

Even on completely controlled film sets, colourists still tweak each shot to even them up between angles etc, so even if the world was perfect your results still wouldn't be.

[kye]

....and if that image doesn't illustrate the problem with lighting, how about this one.

SOOC HLG:

With a basic grade:

These lights all looked white in person!

I sat down, pulled out my camera (GH5 again), looked through the viewfinder and was stunned at the green/magenta mess the camera saw.

[kye]

More examples of bad lighting.

This was a 709 shot from my GF3, which obviously couldn't auto-WB far enough to compensate (yes, this looked white in person):

My best attempt at grading in post also couldn't compensate well enough:

But the real demonstration is on a project.

Here's a camera test I shot.  These are the images after grading:

They all look pretty straight-forward, but it took a lot of work to get to that.  Here are the shots SOOC:

Note that adjacent shots have considerably different looks - SOOC:

After:

Obviously I've let the flaring lower the contrast on the middle images to a certain extent because otherwise it would look too forced, but the tint of the first image and second ones needed to be evened out as one had the sun in it and the other didn't.

I've shot these tests by the beach many times, using many different cameras (OG BMPCC, BMMCC, GH5, GX85, XC10, GF3, iPhone, GoPro, etc), shooting manually and in auto, in RAW / LOG / 709, etc etc.  All required decent amounts of work in post to even them out and look normal.

It's like anything - the natural look takes the most amount of work and is, in reality, the least natural.

You keep saying you want nice looking images without doing any/much work, but I've been working super hard at this for quite some years now and it's just not possible.  You either get nice looking images with work, or you wave the camera around and you get out what you put in - a film that looks like a dad with a handycam.

The myth that you can buy it was created by equipment manufacturers trying to sell you cameras and LUT bros on YT trying to sell their LUT packs.

[SRV1981]

I invite you to check the older thread I bumped of discussions that don’t seem to full agree with your stance by folks more knowledgeable than myself.  But to assume the camera doesn’t matter as I see in your long appeals, then why not shoot all movies on iPhones with Apple ProRes log?

[PPNS]

9 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Clearly great points. But I think it’s still missing the mark, given that the user in my scenario wants a quick turn around in many lighting conditions outside of our control what sensors currently produce an image you love with minimal effort. 

you realise that this is contradictory, right? in those situations people shoot with amiras,fs7s/fx6/9s, or even the big bulky ENG cams with a r709 profile and just kinda let it go that it looks kinda shitty. that's part of the trade off if you shoot in these conditions/that kind of turnaround. 

9 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

the gx85 image is lovely but also the kids skin looks deathly anemic. Another sensor and processor would.l render that scene differently.  That’s the conversation 

while it would probably look a bit different, it would also not look very desirable if you were to shoot that exact shot with an amira. sensors aren't magic, and even the best don't handle random street lights at night very well. 

[SRV1981]

2 hours ago, PPNS said:

you realise that this is contradictory, right? in those situations people shoot with amiras,fs7s/fx6/9s, or even the big bulky ENG cams with a r709 profile and just kinda let it go that it looks kinda shitty. that's part of the trade off if you shoot in these conditions/that kind of turnaround. 

while it would probably look a bit different, it would also not look very desirable if you were to shoot that exact shot with an amira. sensors aren't magic, and even the best don't handle random street lights at night very well. 

You do realize technology matters? You do realize different camera produce differences in image that are pleasing to some and not others? Do you realize the original thread is about what camera you prefer to get the closest to your goal image with minimal work? Are you aware 99% of responses didn’t address that? Should I wear makeup?

[kye]

3 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

I invite you to check the older thread I bumped of discussions that don’t seem to full agree with your stance by folks more knowledgeable than myself.  But to assume the camera doesn’t matter as I see in your long appeals, then why not shoot all movies on iPhones with Apple ProRes log?

You can agree or disagree or bump whatever threads you want - I showed you examples from the real world.

If bumping threads somehow changed reality, I'd bump as many threads as was necessary to make it so that I could get Hollywood level colour from my phone without any work in post.  Hell, I'd create all the accounts and make all the posts myself if it would actually make it so.

I am so vocal about this because what you are asking about is what I desperately want, but that just isn't how it works.

To answer your question directly, no I don't say that the camera doesn't matter at all, but the camera doesn't matter in terms of getting great shots straight-out-of-camera without any work in post, because none of them can do it.  Have you ever seen ungraded Alexa footage?  It looks just like ungraded footage from any other capable camera (S1H, BMPCC, etc).

In fact, you know what...  here's your answer.  The BMPCC 4K.

Here is a comparison between an Alexa and a BMPCC 4K without any grading done in post except the ARRI LUT (and of course the BMPCC4K has had a conversion put onto it to make it match the Alexa).

Juan is a professional film-maker / colourist and this is the real-deal, not a YT LUT bro product.  

If you think that any camera is capable of what you want then the Alexa must be, and as you can see, with that conversion the BMPCC4K can do it too.

This is the product page.

https://juanmelara.com.au/products/bmpcc-4k-to-alexa-powergrade-and-luts

Knock yourself out!

[SRV1981]

23 minutes ago, kye said:

The BMPCC 4K.

That’s solid! What’s your thoughts on the original BMPCC ?

[BTM_Pix]

On 4/21/2024 at 12:42 PM, mercer said:

As far as... how can I judge the image... look at the skin tones... the weight of the image. It looks and feels like a real movie.

I like the look of it too.

I think what it is benefitting from greatly, aside from the compositions, image quality and general shooting competency, is what I would call accidental environmental production design.

The uniforms and demeanour of the subjects are consistent and tie together as does the station setting and its train and staff.

When the shots are framed, as many of them are, to only include those elements then it provides the right aesthetic to sell the "cinematic" image.

The proof of that, for me at least, is when other none designed elements stray into the frame and not just the obvious of modern vehicles etc but onlookers with modern clothes (particularly those out of the general colour palette) then the illusion is gone and quite jarring to be taken out of it.

No amount of obsessive grading is going to cure that.

Oh and the use of a tripod does absolutely no harm whatsoever in this as does the flattish light of what I am guessing is the archetypal overcast Bank Holiday day in the UK.

All in all, aside from it being a good advert for a camera from "yesteryear" in modern terms, I also think this is more broadly a very good example of why "cinematic" doesn't just happen when wafting a camera at random scenes no matter what YouTube thumbnails will scream at you.

When it comes to trying to do this in the wild, its definitely a case of granting ourselves the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, the skill and vision to change the things we can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

 

[ghostwind]

1 hour ago, SRV1981 said:

You do realize technology matters? You do realize different camera produce differences in image that are pleasing to some and not others? Do you realize the original thread is about what camera you prefer to get the closest to your goal image with minimal work? Are you aware 99% of responses didn’t address that? Should I wear makeup?

This has got to be one of the dumbest threads I've read in some time. I'm surprised people have the patience to post such long replies. You keep going on and on about nothing meaningful or interesting. Do you realize what you're asking for is subjective? Do you realize the examples you posted as looks/cameras you like (e.g., "Civil War" look shot on the Sony Venice) are heavily graded? Do you realize you can achieve that look with any number of cameras? Do you even shoot anything, or just the "shit" on forums?

[SRV1981]

1 hour ago, kye said:

The BMPCC 4K.

this shows a nice contrast to a popular camera - fx3. I agree the bmpcc4k does look more pleasing, overall. My eye is drawn toward that side of the screen. 

[SRV1981]

In these images there seems to be the possibility of getting nearly identical color, though I'm not versed in grading - but it seems that these 4 different comparisons show SOOC images to be different enough for many to have a preference.  Again, that was the original question:  what camera do you choose when you don't want to grade much and get close to your preferred look with minimal effort.

Some of the banter here has pushed me, personally, to the notion that I prefer the look of Canon images given the same lighting situation over Sony but the compact Sony bodies, lens options, etc. make them a better buy for the SOOC-esque scenario.  May have to wait to see what Canon announces in May.

Wrapping up - just heard someone say the C70 looks great even with not the best lighting but the R5 does not.  I also prefer the look of Red cameras from what i've seen than much of the Arri (skin tones in particular).

[ac6000cw]

18 hours ago, kye said:

This is a fundamental split in the camera communities - those who like the look of cinema and those that like the look of video.

For my own stuff, I prefer it to be as 'faithful as possible' to the original scene, within the limits of the tools I've got and the amount of time I'm prepared to spend fiddling with it. I don't care what someone else wants to categorise that as, but I suspect it would come under your 'video' category.

Personally the parts of the production process I find most interesting are being out-and-about recording the content, the basic editing (the clip choice, 'flow' and the cutting) and getting the best out of the ambient sound. Adjusting the image doesn't usually get much more advanced for me than brightness, contrast, saturation and sharpness, unless there's a clip that's particularly 'off' what I think it should look like in the lighting conditions at the time.

But I'm perfectly happy respecting and enjoying other peoples artistic choices, including abstract art (which is inherently non-realistic). But nobody likes every piece of art they view...

[KnightsFan]

40 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Again, that was the original question:  what camera do you choose when you don't want to grade much and get close to your preferred look with minimal effort.

40 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Wrapping up - just heard someone say the C70 looks great even with not the best lighting but the R5 does not.  I also prefer the look of Red cameras from what i've seen than much of the Arri (skin tones in particular).

Yeah I heard the original question, and I think that while the posts diving into complex grading are fascinating and useful to those of us who do post, I know that getting good color SOOC is a separate question.

One big point about your question is that it doesn't break down by manufacturer. Not all REDs look the same, not all Sonys look the same, etc. I think the Sony FX6 looks fine, but I dislike the FS7. Also, most cameras have different profiles. Sometimes, there is greater  difference between profiles on the same camera, than between normal/natural/standard/default/whatever profiles on many different cameras. And even within a profile, you'll have totally different results based on how many controls you leave on auto (such as WB) and your lens.

SOOC and minimal grading are completely different. SOOC excludes log profiles, for one thing.

There is budget as well. Best SOOC ever? Alexa 35, probably. Under $10k? C500mkII gets my vote. Under $2k? Nikon Z6 is solid. Are you including lenses in your budget? I like the color out of my Canon L 24-105 better than that of my Canon 50 1.8 (tested on Sony A7rII). Though I have also used terrible lenses for specific scenes, specifically to make them less appealing.

If you want a specific answer or even a specific discussion, ask a more specific question because your original question is extremely open ended--which is fine to start with! But it's probably more useful and interesting to narrow the parameters a bit.