How Important Is The Colour Science Of A Camera?

[MrSMW]

High, medium, low, not at all?

SOOC.

Surely in this day and age, not only can we make a couple of micro adjustments in camera, but also in post.

There seems to be so much debate whether Nikon is better than Canon or Sony is better than Nikon or whoever etc...

Obviously, some 'tests' are highly skewed with some 'testers' pushing the files that are not their chosen system in the wrong direction (yes really, sometimes The Internet lies!) but just how relevant is it in 2024 with the latest cameras?

Personally, I rank it as being exceedingly low and not a deciding factor.

That is not to say I do not care about colour because I do, but I personally do not see what a camera is producing SOOC being the be all and end all of criteria and unless I am totally wrong, tweaks both in camera and after the fact can easily be made.

It's not my specialist subject, just curious...

 

[zlfan]

I think it depends. when the resolution is low, resolution is the most critical criteria. after reaching 1080p or 4k, resolution is not that important. dr is good enough once it reaches 11-12 stops, going to 15 stops, but sacrificing the mid tones, i.e., the skin tones, it is not the right way. canon sensor is tuned for skin tones, so lower dr, Nikon sensor is tuned for dr, and the skin tones are not good. 

I think right now, the color and the skin tones should kick in as the most important criteria, as we already have 1080p and 4k available everywhere. dr is at least 10-12 stops for most of the cameras now. 

[zlfan]

skin tones and color are correlated inherently. difference races have different skin colors, need different ire to exposure right, the sensor and the color array filter also need to be optimized for these. very complicated. in the future, I will not be surprised that some cameras are designed for white people, some for black people, some for asian. this is huge market. I think in the film era, that Kodak film stock portra is optimized for white people, fuji provia is optimized for asian people. maybe there are film stocks optimized for black people, etc. 

[kye]

As a fan of colour grading, I'm the first one to promote the idea that the footage SOOC is like a film negative - it's yet to be developed in post.

However, while there are some things you can adjust in post to improve the cameras colour science, like WB or hue shifts (which people get triggered about all the time), you can't (without AI) make the footage higher quality.  The richness of 5D ML 14-bit RAW can't be created out of the 8-bit 709 images from my GX85 (believe me - I've been trying for years!).

BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT....  without lighting this is a BS pointless discussion.

(and without anything interesting to point the camera at, lighting is polishing a turd)

.....((and without a story to tell, glorious compositions won't even keep me awake)).....

[MrSMW]

39 minutes ago, kye said:

BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT....  without lighting this is a BS pointless discussion.

OK and agree, but I am really referring to Canon 14 bit camera vs Sony 14 bit camera vs Nikon 14 bit camera vs Lumix 14 bit camera, same or equivalent lenses, focal lengths, sensor sizes et al, ie, all things being as 'equal' as they can be, including same light, same circumstances.

Ie, is then colour science an 'issue' or subject to the most minor of WB and hue shifts in camera, the differences would be so minuscule it's not a thing?

[kye]

3 hours ago, MrSMW said:

OK and agree, but I am really referring to Canon 14 bit camera vs Sony 14 bit camera vs Nikon 14 bit camera vs Lumix 14 bit camera, same or equivalent lenses, focal lengths, sensor sizes et al, ie, all things being as 'equal' as they can be, including same light, same circumstances.

Ie, is then colour science an 'issue' or subject to the most minor of WB and hue shifts in camera, the differences would be so minuscule it's not a thing?

It's a big "it depends", based on lots of factors:

• Some scenes are more difficult technically to capture than others
• Some scenes are more difficult aesthetically to reproduce than others
• Some differences can be compensated for in post easily (e.g. small WB differences, skin tone hue rotations, etc)
• Some differences can't be compensated for (e.g. skin tone smoothing, quantisation issues like 8-bit log codec, lots of non-linear processing)
• The stronger the grade you're going to put on it the less it matters
• The more skilled you are in post the less it matters
• The more powerful the tools you use in post the less it matters
• The better the cameras colour profiles are the less it matters
• The less picky your audience is the less it matters
• The less saturated the final image the less it matters
• Etc

The problem with discussing it is that on the open internet, the only two opinions anyone seems to understand is "it is the only thing that matters" or "it doesn't matter at all", and those who dare to look in the middle ground can't tell which of the strange things in the test images belong to which camp - easy or difficult or impossible to fix.

[fuzzynormal]

Yeah, depends on what you really want to accomplish.

I'm a doc guy so my first thought is: capture it or it didn't happen. 

Without story, well, what are you looking at? At least that's my tact.

If rez or skin tones are less than optimum, I'll cope with it later, but at least I got it.

[Davide DB]

Just to slightly derail this thread...

https://vmi.tv/blog/learn-help/is-4k-or-6k-enough-do-we-even-need-8k-or-more/

Long and wise article. Excellent final mention of BCC documentarians who is a particular case that seems to contradict  the rest and confirms the small reign of Red cameras (although in some BBC behind-the-scenes I have seen Sony popping up...)

Quote

 

In Natural History, windowing of sensor can be used to extend the apparent reach of the lens… windowing is also the only way to achieve higher frame rates when shooting RAW so there are other considerations we have. Actually, much of what you’ve written chimes with why we have gone down the Red Raptor VV 8K route for our workhorse Nat Hist camera.  When paired with the Canon CN20, the Raptor can only achieve 5 or 6K (depending on focal length) without vignetting.  This keeps data down and helps with all the other points you’ve raised about data but, if we need to shoot 8K we can either put in the 1.5x extender or use full frame glass and shoot 8k (where there’s a purpose… perhaps for VFX plates / people expecting extensive cropping in post etc).  We feel the Raptor VV is a better low light performer than it’s S35 sibling and for the higher frame rate of 4K 240fps – the VV’s bigger pixel pitch/light gathering means it produces a cleaner image overall.

Senior Producer BBC NHU

 

 

 

[Benjamin Hilton]

I think the color science that happens in camera is really important. I'm also a believer that the image nearly always needs to be "developed" in post, but that development is largely power or constricted by the color science out of camera.

 

That being said, I think all the major camera companies have good color science these days. Any nuances between Canon, Sony, Lumix, or Nikon can be easily massaged out in post if the starting image is good. 

[PPNS]

Not very imo

[fuzzynormal]

22 hours ago, Davide DB said:

BCC documentarians who is a particular case that seems to contradict...

The BBC exists in a different production and financial context than independent documentaries.

Even there, if the option was to capture something on a GH2, or not get it at all, they'd choose the GH2.  Lucky for them, they don't have to worry about that.

[eatstoomuchjam]

28 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

Even there, if the option was to capture something on a GH2, or not get it at all, they'd choose the GH2.  Lucky for them, they don't have to worry about that.

If you're doing a run and gun documentary, the GH2 has a number of advantages over a v-raptor vv, including that it's smaller/lighter, requires less rigging to be functional, and because of those things will draw less attention.

[Davide DB]

Guys I'm with you but a BBC doc is not "run & gun". Quite the opposite.

[Evgeniy85]

All modern cameras have good colors. It's all comes down to filming and post production.

[zlfan]

On 7/1/2024 at 7:27 AM, fuzzynormal said:

Yeah, depends on what you really want to accomplish.

I'm a doc guy so my first thought is: capture it or it didn't happen. 

Without story, well, what are you looking at? At least that's my tact.

If rez or skin tones are less than optimum, I'll cope with it later, but at least I got it.

this is why I think Arri's venture into the broadcast network will not be successful. although Alexa series are the reference cameras in terms of image quality, they are not essential to news reporting. 

in some small segments, Alexa may be successful, but still not irreplaceable. for example, us nfl shooting teams use Alexa 35 as the standard camera. it may suit them, as the football field is ok for 30-300mm canon cinema zoom. and the cameramen do not need to run and gone so much. they just need to walk by the field line. and, nfl has money. even so, this work can be done using the latest hybrids too. 

[zlfan]

 

[zlfan]

2 hours ago, Evgeniy85 said:

All modern cameras have good colors. It's all comes down to filming and post production.

there are huge differences in terms of color in different cameras. even raw cameras are different, not to say 10 bit or 8 bit cameras. 14 bit raw cameras are different from 12 bit raw cameras. in still worlds, medium format cameras have 16 bit raw, just different level. 

[eatstoomuchjam]

5 hours ago, Davide DB said:

Guys I'm with you but a BBC doc is not "run & gun". Quite the opposite.

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that the BBC was doing run & gun that would use a GH2.  I was only responding to the implication that the GH2 would be a poor choice for a documentary.  😄

[PannySVHS]

From what I know, Canon C70 should be image quality champ for under 4000 Euro by a larger margin, A7S3 is unpredictable under lower light conditions when it comes to mush. S1H looking a bit dull under average daylight without dedicated grading efforts despite its awesome processing pipeline. The humble og BMPCC looks beautiful with basic grading skills under same conditions.

So I figure that colour science is still making a difference in my use cases for video. Knowing the limits and strengths of chosen cameras narrows the differences in colour quality under certain light conditions regarding quality and quantity.

[fuzzynormal]

3 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

implication that the GH2 would be a poor choice for a documentary.  😄

Yeah, small unassuming kit and crew can be much more productive than the opposite when doing doc production.  

I can bear witness to this.  Anyone else willing to testify?

As for me, if someone told me a GH2 was all I had to make something, I'd shrug and do fine with it.  I've done it before.  Moreover, it would be fun and nimble.  Okay by me. 

Yeah, I'm kind of done with fretting about perfect colors and resolution when it's much more important to get decent well shot coverage.

I swear to god, I wish I had footage off a GH-ONE in the hands of a competent shooter for this current doc edit I'm doing --rather than the piles of sloppy handheld crap from an ARRI "cinematographer" that I'm trying to stitch together.

Oooooooo, your pile of shit footage in my edit bins has more dynamic range? You got to play with a bunch of neat-o gear in the field for a year?  Hooray, you used a jib.  You had a portable video village?  A PA?  You broke out the steady cam?  Your prime lens package cost more than my car?  La dee daa. 

All your footage sucks and doesn't cut together. 

Great.

(just spent the day in the editing room)