Color - SOOC vs. LUTs/Grading

[SRV1981]

3 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

SOOC excludes log profiles, for one thing.

Many cameras have baked in LUTs. 

 

4 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

Nikon Z6 is solid

I’d scoop a Nikon in z6 size with z8 sensor! 

 

4 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

Are you including lenses in your budget?

I’m not buying anything lol

 

5 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

But it's probably more useful and interesting to narrow the parameters a bit.

I think this is the best critique of my post. It’s wild how heated anonymous strangers can get lol. 
 

so let’s say scenario wise:

 

1. you’re vacationing with your significant other and want to get as close to “film” look with minimal effort. What camera are you taking?

a. Budget $4k for a body 

2. you have a mini doc for run and gun - turn around time is short. What camera brings you closest to the image you like without much grading? 
 

a. Budget $4k for body

b. Budget $10k for body 

3. you have time and want to shoot a big doc or narrative - time isn’t an issue, what camera do you take - 

a  budget - $5k

b  budget - $10k

again thanks for asking an awesome clarifying question! 🙋‍♂️ 

[PPNS]

I’m gonna add this opinion: i dont like any of the of the stock r709 profiles or luts from any cameras, including arris.

 

so what’s the best sooc looking camera? None of them imo. I almost always shoot with a custom LUT because of that.

[eatstoomuchjam]

The budget is just for the body and not for the body+glass?
1) Used GFX 100S - the video is good enough for vacation and the stills are incredible
2a) C70 - looks nice SOOC, built-in ND's, nearly the perfect camera for a fast turn-around
2b) GFX 100 II (Love mine)
3a) C70 - as before and the raw from it is flexible enough for anything I do
3b) Used Monstro 8K VV - I haven't actually shot with one, but they seem pretty nice and I sometimes consider doing some trade-in toward one - used models are now about 6k for the brain on reputable used sites

[SRV1981]

1 minute ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

The budget is just for the body and not for the body+glass?
1) Used GFX 100S - the video is good enough for vacation and the stills are incredible
2a) C70 - looks nice SOOC, built-in ND's, nearly the perfect camera for a fast turn-around
2b) GFX 100 II (Love mine)
3a) C70 - as before and the raw from it is flexible enough for anything I do
3b) Used Monstro 8K VV - I haven't actually shot with one, but they seem pretty nice and I sometimes consider doing some trade-in toward one - used models are now about 6k for the brain on reputable used sites

C70 is a dream image for me! I’ll check GFX.  I never investigated those 

[KnightsFan]

59 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Many cameras have baked in LUTs. 

Right, but they are not the same as shooting log and then using Resolve color management as a 1-step modification. On my S5, shooting Vlog and then using color management > shooting standard profile.

Or, if you mean a baked in user-specified LUT, that adds another dimension again.

1 hour ago, SRV1981 said:

I’m not buying anything lol

I know, I meant for the discussion. Otherwise... Alexa 35 is always the answer 🙂

1 hour ago, SRV1981 said:

1. you’re vacationing with your significant other and want to get as close to “film” look with minimal effort. What camera are you taking?

These are hard questions because almost no test footage on the internet is SOOC, I haven't used every camera, and also of course there are many different film stocks so it really depends what you consider a film look. I'll also assume price new so the C70 is >$4k etc.

But given my limited knowledge, and if the only consideration is color with zero post manipulation, for a generic project, my only answer is the Samsung NX1. Absolutely blows everything else I've used out of the water!

However, I would never use NX as its a dead system with no active EF adapters. And there is no log profile.

So my personal choice in that scenario would probably be a Panasonic S5IIx. But a good portion of my reasoning is based on Vlog, its pixel shift photo mode, and no strange crop factors and other limitations like some others. So not strictly color.

1 hour ago, SRV1981 said:

2. you have a mini doc for run and gun - turn around time is short. What camera brings you closest to the image you like without much grading?

This introduces another caveat in addition to the ones above, which is that color is the last consideration for a run and gun doc. My choice is whichever camera has the best AF, IS, sensitivity, audio, and reliability. So while the NX1 color is great, it's absolutely my last pick for the purpose.

Overall, I would pick a C200 for the $4k budget, and C500mkII for $10k. They have great color and also fit the other criteria.

1 hour ago, SRV1981 said:

3. you have time and want to shoot a big doc or narrative - time isn’t an issue, what camera do you take - 

Ergonomics play much less of a role here than for doc, but of course the big consideration is what the production looks like and what our goal is. Are we shooting natural light? Studio lights? Indoor with a couple 100-200W LEDs? What lenses? Since I can take my time, I'm absolutely shooting log and doing color work in post. So I wouldn't even consider the SOOC question for this scenario 🙂

For $5k I'm probably using a Z Cam F6. The ergonomics, sensitivity, and wireless control are huge, and the color is fine.

For $10k the C500mkII looks pretty good. My friend just got a pair and loves them, but I haven't tried it personally.

[SRV1981]

Do you think you prefer the red/magenta bias of images ? I ask because canon and Panasonic seem to have that 

[kye]

10 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

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

Great camera.  It's cinema in a box the size of a pack of cigarettes.

3 hours ago, ac6000cw said:

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.

There's nothing wrong with video - technically it's what I do.

One thing that is starting to be understood is the look of the footage, which with video often looks quite artificial, which is in contrast to film which looks quite organic.  Artificial isn't a bad thing either - all styles are valid.

My own preferences are for something that is aesthetically pleasing, mildly flattering, and doesn't call attention to itself.  This has pushed me into investigating the whole subject and what "cinematic" actually means, which leads into the territory of YouTubers making cinematic videos that despite having huge amounts of effort and thousands of dollars of equipment are some of the least cinematic videos ever made, even when compared to something like a T2i.

2 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Many cameras have baked in LUTs. 

...and you can install your own.  Bingo!  Instantly, you can have whatever look you want, SOOC.

2 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

1. you’re vacationing with your significant other and want to get as close to “film” look with minimal effort. What camera are you taking?

This is what I do.

My current best answer is GX85, 14-140mm zoom, 12-35mm zoom, and 12-32mm zoom.  If I'm not allowed to colour grade it, I'll edit it on a 720p timeline and export upscaling that timeline to 4K.  That will knock the digital edge off it.

Why?  

Because if your camera is large then you'll get beautiful images with lovely colour science and everyone in the background of those images will be staring at the camera.

Oh darn it!  There I go again, talking about something other than colour.  It's like I'll never learn that there's no more to film-making than camera tests.

2 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

2. you have a mini doc for run and gun - turn around time is short. What camera brings you closest to the image you like without much grading?

C300mk2.

Why?

Go watch any video on why this is the most popular documentary camera.

2 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

3. you have time and want to shoot a big doc or narrative - time isn’t an issue, what camera do you take - 

a  budget - $5k

b  budget - $10k

Rent an Alexa.

If you want to understand why, go watch any video from a professional cinematographer or colourist talking about why Alexa is the best choice.

2 hours ago, PPNS said:

I’m gonna add this opinion: i dont like any of the of the stock r709 profiles or luts from any cameras, including arris.

so what’s the best sooc looking camera? None of them imo. I almost always shoot with a custom LUT because of that.

Neither do I.  Which is sort of the point I've been making all along.

Alexas are known to be green, sometimes even problematically so.  Canons are magenta.  etc etc.

If we're talking about choosing cameras for the best SOOC colour, and yet bizarrely there isn't any limitation on the fact that some cameras require 3 people to operate them, then I'm thinking that if you can put a LUT in the camera then it counts as being SOOC colour.  Ironically, because it comes SOOC lol.

In which case, you can choose Alexa 65 and just put a modified 250D / 2383 LUT in there and you're done!

38 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Do you think you prefer the red/magenta bias of images ? I ask because canon and Panasonic seem to have that 

Alexas also tend to go green.

There's a knob in any NLE that corrects this, but don't let 3s of work in post stop you from changing your entire set design around that one tiny little thing!

[SRV1981]

48 minutes ago, kye said:

Instantly, you can have whatever look you want, SOOC.

I’ll have to find the examples I’ve seen where even with the same LUT, say Phantom - the cameras produce different images. You could probably edit in post to get them nearly identical unless you a/b but the question, for me is what can take the least time. I’m realizing Canon and Lumix are my answers for this discussion.  
 

50 minutes ago, kye said:

GX85

Will check this too! Thanks 

 

50 minutes ago, kye said:

C300mk2

1000% this. If I could get this image in a smaller body I’d do it in a heartbeat. 

 

51 minutes ago, kye said:

Alexas also tend to go green.

Above my pay grade but I’d say some creators still keep some of that green in and I dislike it compared to movies or shows that accentuate pinks and magentas. Just my preference for watching cinema and producing 

[KnightsFan]

1 hour ago, SRV1981 said:

Do you think you prefer the red/magenta bias of images ? I ask because canon and Panasonic seem to have that 

What I like about recent Canon C line is that the skin often has a bit more separation from other colors. I don't know that I prefer red/magenta, but it's not nice if skin gets muddled with everything else. I wouldn't say all Canon, because I was honestly never a fan of the C100's image for the few shoots I used it on.

I don't know that I especially like color on the Panasonic S-series as SOOC it tends to exaggerate yellows. It's a great camera and does what I need at an unbeatable price though.

[kye]

36 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

I’ll have to find the examples I’ve seen where even with the same LUT, say Phantom - the cameras produce different images. You could probably edit in post to get them nearly identical unless you a/b but the question, for me is what can take the least time. I’m realizing Canon and Lumix are my answers for this discussion.  

You're still not getting it.

If you were going to shoot SOOC, you would adjust the camera settings to dial in the look you like.  You'd be colour grading in-camera rather than in post.

It's well known that Panasonic users will adjust the Hue in the camera in order to shift the skin tones to where they want so SOOC looks to their tastes.  The GH5 (and many other cameras I'd imagine) have manual temp and tint controls so you can dial in whatever WB you want manually.

Also, if you were going to put a LUT into the camera, you'd dial it in first, making it how you wanted.

I seriously don't think that there is anyone that is interested in good colour that isn't willing to do at least something to get it - not willing to audition and customise the profile in-camera AND not willing to even do light edits in post but yet still wanting good colour enough to change camera systems entirely is just silly.

It's like saying you want to make the best adventure films possible but you're not willing to leave your house.

36 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Will check this too! Thanks 

Most cameras have too much DR to look good SOOC because the profiles won't look contrasty enough, so a lower DR camera is your best bet.  The GX85 is pretty good in this regard.  As well as for other aspects of the film-making process that shall remain nameless and unacknowledged.

Panasonic actually has really nice colour - it's just not cool to say it out loud on the forums but I hear it from people in private quite often.

Here's a post with a bunch of GX85 images that are all SOOC:

https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/74148-making-the-most-of-the-iphone-gx85-and-gh5-and-shooting-in-the-real-world/?do=findComment&comment=569842

36 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Above my pay grade but I’d say some creators still keep some of that green in and I dislike it compared to movies or shows that accentuate pinks and magentas. Just my preference for watching cinema and producing 

No.  No-one "keeps" the green in the Alexa image.

Anyone shooting with an Alexa will be colour grading it.  Anyone who shoots on Alexa and ends up with a green tinted image WANTED that look, and CREATED that look specifically.  It didn't stay there by default due to the lack of anyone doing any colour grading.  That green look that I showed in feature films is actually not very easy to get - just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not desirable and nuanced.

Think about this some more...

You saw that side-by-side with the Alexa and P4K.  What did that show you?  Even in very high DR situations, the P4K is a simple matrix transformation away from looking like an Alexa.  

But, P4K footage from all these influencers and low-budget film-makers doesn't look like Alexa footage - not even slightly! Why?  Because the look of TV and movies isn't created by the camera - it's created by the lighting, production design, and colour grading!  Student films don't instantly look like movies when they buy an FX3.

Some years ago a YouTuber I follow hosted a TV show and vlogged the BTS and got a few production images to share.  There was one that was side-by-side.

This is the image from her A7S3 - a very capable camera - with a pretty standard colour grade:

This is an unused production shot from the Sony cinema camera right next to her...  

Here's the thing...  These cameras have almost everything in common and yet the image is so different.  Hannah isn't a colourist but isn't a noob either - her videos will be colour graded to a reasonable extent and she regularly makes beautifully looking images and sequences in her travels around Japan.  

So what's left?  Everything except the camera....

So no, if even a tourism travel TV show can colour grade their images so far from where they started, then no Alexa footage ends up green by "keeping" the green in.

[SRV1981]

44 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

Canon C line is that the skin often has a bit more separation from other colors

That’s a better way of saying it. 
 

44 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

Panasonic S-series as SOOC it tends to exaggerate yellows.

Do you remove it internally or in post production? 

 

10 minutes ago, kye said:

You're still not getting it.

I think you don’t get it or feel the original query is beneath your masterclass expertise - no need to comment. Ever. 

[KnightsFan]

13 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Do you remove it internally or in post production? 

Post. I trust my calibrated monitor in a controlled room better than the one on set. So what I do with any new camera is I do a bunch of tests to find a setting that I like, then I shoot everything in that setting and adjust in post as needed. That way I am very familiar with what I can or can't do with that setting. I will often do tests to create specific color node graphs ahead of time, designed to be applied in post. But on the shoot I want everything to be familiar, even when I know based on my tests what it will transform into. That's not to say I'm good at cinematography. But I do think I'm good at not wasting people's time. I test everything ahead of time by myself or with the people leading the project, then we maximize set time for the actors and crew. No fiddling with settings while people are waiting around.

[kye]

1 hour ago, SRV1981 said:

I think you don’t get it or feel the original query is beneath your masterclass expertise - no need to comment. Ever. 

My expertise is very far from masterclass..  if you think it is that level then it just shows how little you understand about the subject.  If you were being sarcastic then that's just not very nice, and really just makes a comment about how badly you handle criticism.  If you weren't being sarcastic, then you obviously have some sort of belief about cameras and colour science that is holding you back from hearing what everyone seems to be telling you.

You obviously took my comments personally, which of course you're free to do, but this isn't a discussion about how we can all make each other feel loved and supported - this is a discussion about something tangible and there are concepts to understand, so if you aren't understanding them then pointing that out is a kindness, because it provides you the opportunity to re-evaluate and try and listen to peoples comments in a new way.

The concept you're not understanding is that no-one who cares about colour grading enough to talk about it online but wouldn't be willing to change camera settings, upload LUTs, or do basic adjustments in post.  Even the "Buy my LUT" YT camera bros will tell you that you need to grade underneath it, at least making minor changes to the contrast, WB, exposure, saturation, and the like.

The people that are willing to talk about colour grading online but aren't willing to actually do anything about it aren't interested in colour science, they're interested in trolling or are lonely or are attached to a fantasy they can buy great results or some other motivation.  The people who want good colour are willing to at least lift a finger - in post to change a setting here or there - to get better results.

The differences in these side-by-side comparisons you're making is, in many instances, a single adjustment in camera or in post, taking literally a few seconds...  far less time than you've invested in arguing against practically any sensible advice given in this or the many other threads you've started.

[ac6000cw]

5 hours ago, kye said:

Panasonic actually has really nice colour - it's just not cool to say it out loud on the forums but I hear it from people in private quite often.

I agree (having owned 10 of their hybrid cameras and 2 camcorders in the last 15 years).

Panasonic has a long heritage in professional video (going back over 60 years) and it shows. I think the GH5 became a very popular camera for video because it was a good all-round, reliable, video tool in most situations, rather than excelling in any particular area at the expense of others or having a specific SOOC 'look'. 

For a bit of fun, this is 9 year old, basically SOOC, FHD 50p video from a Panasonic LX7 'enthusiast compact' with a small 10MP 1/1.7" sensor. There's some obvious aliasing/jaggies and I think the reds/oranges in particular are exaggerated. But for a camera launched in 2012 that fitted in the palm of one hand and weighed 270g I think it is reasonably decent (and could be improved in post). SOOC video from a G6, GX85 or G80 would leave it in the dust though, having much less aliasing and better balanced colours.

 

[kye]

2 hours ago, ac6000cw said:

I agree (having owned 10 of their hybrid cameras and 2 camcorders in the last 15 years).

Here's a few images from the GF3, not exactly the best video camera in the world, but even it has some nice colour.  These are all shot with the Mir 37mm f2.8 with speed booster and wide open, and all shots are SOOC:

Obviously these are very challenging conditions with mixed colour temps and low light so the ISO probably wasn't at its native setting either, but not bad.

These all look a bit flat to me, even from such an old camera with a low DR compared to now, but my literally my first thought is to increase contrast and then evaluate the saturation.

I've analysed GX85 colour before in this thread: https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/59121-gx85-alexa-conversion-and-colour-profile-investigations/

 

The default profiles are like most modern profiles, and bear a resemblance to some of the best colour in the business...

GX85 Natural Profile:

Alexa:

To get a sense of how similar these are, if they were technically correct those lines would go straight to the middle of the reference boxes on the overlay.  Obviously they're way off, but in a relatively similar way.

Obviously this is a dramatic simplification of the whole colour science, but it gives a sense of it.

2 hours ago, ac6000cw said:

Panasonic has a long heritage in professional video (going back over 60 years) and it shows. I think the GH5 became a very popular camera for video because it was a good all-round, reliable, video tool in most situations, rather than excelling in any particular area at the expense of others or having a specific SOOC 'look'. 

My experience of the GH5 is that it it a real work-horse and that everything has been thought-through so that it quietly does the job and stays out of your way.  The image was practically indestructible, even if you tried.  I've posted these previously, but here's what happens if you try to break the image..  Here's the flattest image I could find - SOOC HLG:

With the most extreme amount of contrast you can make with the curves tool (literally a vertical line):

I think that was the 150Mbps IPB codec too - the 400Mbps ALL-I might be better again.

When I had the XC10 and was shooting 8-bit C-Log I was trying and failing to get good colour from it and trying to learn colour grading and colour management etc, and I was watching all these colour grading tutorials of people grading RAW Alexa and RED and BM footage and there was this smoothness and elegance in how it all worked - they adjusted this control and that control and the footage just glided around like it had infinite subtlety and richness in the files, but the XC10 footage was just the opposite.  

Then I bought the GH5 and the files felt exactly how all those colour grading tutorials looked - the files were just like velvet.  Of course, it's not quite as good as the high-end cine cameras, but the footage is seriously malleable and if you know what you're doing then you can really extract great images from it.

All modern cameras are like hypercars and most film-making uses only a tiny fraction of their potential.

[SRV1981]

To what degree is Alexa’s image desired due to its color rendition versus its unbelievable dynamic range? When I see LUTs that attempt to emulate Arri, I like the balance of highlight and shadows but I don’t care for skintones. Again, more green than my brain is biased to. 

[SRV1981]

what about this image ? Fan or no?

[kye]

11 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

To what degree is Alexa’s image desired due to its color rendition versus its unbelievable dynamic range? When I see LUTs that attempt to emulate Arri, I like the balance of highlight and shadows but I don’t care for skintones. Again, more green than my brain is biased to. 

My impression was that people like the Alexa image for everything.  The DR only matters if you're filming something that is high DR, and even then if you're watching it on a 709 display then the Alexa images have the same DR as every other camera.

I also find that Alexas look green in camera tests, but probably the main reason for loving the Alexa look is that when used on big productions or by people that know how to use it, the images look great.  However, the Alexa is just a very high quality RAW camera - the files that come out of it are as neutral as you can imagine.

It's the paradox of modern camera discussions.  The best looking images come from the most expensive cameras because the people who know that production design and colour grading is what makes great looking images are going to all that trouble anyway and so may as well rent an Alexa (or RED).  Would the production have looked as good if they shot it on a P4K or S1H?  I'd say maybe 95% as good - maybe 100%.  But, because the people using the P4K or S1H aren't using them in situations where they've put as much effort into production design or colour grading, those images don't look as good.

8 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

what about this image ? Fan or no?

Not really my tastes.  Riza does a lot of work to light herself really well, but the diffusion and colour grading aren't to my tastes.  The image is too diffused and too cream and pastel green/brown for me.  Most of that is in her production design, considering that the blue and yellow in this shot looks relatively normal:

It's the "aesthetic" look that is trendy right now on YT, but Riza takes it to a whole new level.

In a way it's similar to this palette:

But compare the two shots above and notice that the bottom one is a lot crisper - Riza uses a huge amount of diffusion so everything looks hazy.

Maybe it's just my associations..  when I grew up the interiors that were the right age to be old and shitty were the Mission Brown ones, and compared to the colour schemes of the time it just looked drab and dull, which combined with the fact it was old and falling apart, really didn't enamour it to me!

I suspect that for the cultural references of the people making this content right now, this probably balances out the previous aesthetic choices in a way that makes them feel better about themselves and about life etc.  In times of change people get pretty stressed and going for a soft brown and green palette it's probably unconsciously evoking nature and naturalness in some way - which makes sense if you think about the existential threats of climate change and AI that we are currently facing.  People of this age are having climate anxiety in a big way, so it's a real thing in their world.

[kye]

In case you haven't seen it, Riza did a video on how she shoots.

TLDR; she has the most basic standard equipment, but creates the look in production design and in post.

[PannySVHS]

I know what antics make me begin to shy away from posting on this forum. For sure we are not a pro forum per se but pro answers have been given to us by our forum members and friends over the course of over a decade!

Some of kyes post are indeed pro territory and are very worth of reading, even for people who know already one thing or two about some of his topics. In that the info is not only relevant but also very approachable.

I remember the times, when I was just reading the awesome content of this place and I remember the great joy it gave me when I have finally become a member. I was very grateful. Just lately I have begun to lose my temper about some of the nonsense and attitude presented here.

For sure we are not a pro forum, but on a "real" pro forum like cinematography.com ever repeating same questions by would result in a rather spicy and well deserved reply.

@mercer I also like the grade and I found the grade to the point, being natural and not drawing attention to itself but showing the quality of the footage. @ac6000cw I find your example very harsh in contrast relations of certain tones and also in regard of saturation relations between some of the tones, like they are emitting light themselves. Just saying:)