Canon 1DX MKii match9ng with Sony FS7

[benc1982]

Hi all,

I'm looking at purchasing at Canon 1DXMKii. I currently own a Sony FS7. Just wondering if anyone has experience in matching the two cameras? How tricky is this to do?

In addition, i'm aware there is no Log available on the 1DX. Ways around this? I've read about installing the Cinestyle of Technicolour to incrwase Dynamic range to give more room to grade with in post? Would be interested to hear from anyone wh's got experience in this also.




Many thanks.

 

[NMSK]

Having used Cinestyle on my old 1DXii, I would strongly recommend avoiding it. It doesn't do the camera any favours. Same goes for the third party c-log profiles (EOSHD/James Miller), I bought them all and wasn't happy with any of them. In my opinion, they deliver a worse image compared to shooting a more baked in style, like Prolost. Although, the best results I ever got from my 1DXii were with custom profiles developed by a user here 'JCS' called Filmic Skin. Link below:

- https://brightland.com/w/downloads/filmic-skin-pictures-styles-for-canon-dslrs/

 

[jcs]

Thanks NMSK- I reached the same conclusion regarding log emulations as a picture style. Filmic Skin provides full dynamic range of the sensor (as much as is possible using a custom picture style) while preserving skin tones (not a log emulation). Little or no post work is needed depending on the contrast ratio of the shot. I also use on the 80D for gimbal shots.

To match with the FS7 I'd use SLog2 + SGamut3.cine +16 saturation. I was able to match the A7S II with those settings (+ minor post (quick gamma curve etc.)) to the 1DX II.

 

[AndreeOnline]

For me, I've been happy with CineStyle on the 1Dx mkII. I didn't like that profile at all with the 5D mkII or mkIII, but it's as if the more robust codec of the 1Dx mkII is able to wrangle it better.

Mind you, I'm not really trying to contradict the gentlemen above—to each, their own. But we all have different shooing styles and one thing might fit one style but not the other.

As has been alluded to above, we end users don't really have the ability to create log profiles. Using the Picture Editor, we all have to base whatever we create on one of Canon's profiles. That means that the flattest anyone can get with the PP Editor is essentially ProLost with contrast all the way down. But there is already contrast baked in there. It's not Zero contrast.

After that, people try to create 'faux log' by lifting the shadows with the curves editor and playing around with the highlights. Some "log" profiles even just pulled the white point down as in "well, at least now nothing will be bright white even if it's clipped as f*ck". But this is just a curves adjustment WITHIN the limits of ProLost.

There is one exception: Technicolor. CineStyle is the only profile that circumvents Canon's own contrast curves. It's also the reason why CineStyle is locked. You can't copy it and base your own profile off of that. That was the extent of Technicolor's advantage.

Next level after that would be an implementation like Canon Log: here, Canon uses a higher ISO as base in order to pull the exposure internally (adding two stops, or more like 1.67 I think) and then boost the lows and mids via ISO back up.

Anyway, what I like about CineStyle is also that it's based around the well known Cineon log curve. This is a known standard that many LUTs are based upon and that makes CineStyle pretty compatible with further grading, even if you might need to tweak it nonetheless.

Now you've heard two sides of the story. There are many more. Go out and shoot and see what works for you. CineStyle is free.

EDIT, adding some CineStyle grabs:

 

[jcs]

I tested CineStyle as well as creating a working LUT for PP (from the published example) back when it came out (the LUT is a simple symmetric 1D S-curve). In the general case, CineStyle has trouble with skin tones, and doesn't correct Canon color issues (e.g red being super hot).

A custom non-log method (Filmic Skin) handles highlights and shadows and doesn't require much post work (includes color corrections for skin tones as well). Here the hair is in direct sunlight and tree bark is in shadow- both have detail and good color (all shots 1DX II with Filmic Skin):

Clouds peak white and mountain shadows:

Studio accurate skin tones (Jacqui used to use self tanner- color is accurate):

Still works in lower dynamic range shots:

How is this possible? Think about shooting in log and correcting in post (to 709 etc.) with all the appropriate adjustments and doing that in camera. That's what you are seeing in the above examples. This is not possible by tweaking Canon's default settings or by using CineStyle or other picture-style-based log emulations (Filmic Skin is locked too).

Real log on cameras that support it is helpful for more grade-ability in post, as well as can provide more flexibility if exposure isn't quite right. While the C300 II provided more DR and many log options (now sold), I prefer the look of the 1DX II with Filmic Skin, especially for skin tones. I agree that it should not be necessary to create (or purchase) aftermarket settings to get good color straight from the camera. Looks like Fuji's X-T3 and Sony's VENICE (FS5 II etc.) are producing good looking straight-from-camera-color and look forward to more cameras doing the same (expect A7S III to look great).

 

[AndreeOnline]

In the general case, CineStyle has trouble with skin tones, and doesn't correct Canon color issues (e.g red being super hot).

What problem did you have with skin tones? I agree that CineStyle doesn't do anything to the colors—I'm sure some users find that to be more of a feature than a bug though! =)

How is this possible?

Did you not use the PP Editor? If not, how do you get the camera to accept your picture style?

I was assuming you used the Editor with secondary adjustments to hue and luminosity to fit your liking.

 

[jcs]

What problem did you have with skin tones? I agree that CineStyle doesn't do anything to the colors—I'm sure some users find that to be more of a feature than a bug though! =)

Did you not use the PP Editor? If not, how do you get the camera to accept your picture style?

I was assuming you used the Editor with secondary adjustments to hue and luminosity to fit your liking.

I was able to replicate CineStyle with the Canon Picture Style editor and I created Filmic Skin using the same tool (again, not a log emulation). I realized that log emulations didn't provide any more usable dynamic range, but also thinned out the mid tones where skin tones live. Log emulations can work OK in some situations, but don't work everywhere- it's not a general case solution. I tried a lot of variations and it took some time to find a solution that would work everywhere and keep skintones looking good. In your example above, the skin tones look a bit red, which is an issue with Canon in general that a lot of people, including myself, realize this doesn't match what the eye sees. If that shot is a look you like (some like the extra red), all good- that's part of the "Canon Look". I prefer more of the ARRI look (accurate to what the eye sees).

The other goal at the time was to provide a solution that could work with live streaming, where little or no color/contrast adjustments were possible (OBS Studio and similar live streaming tools (OBS Studio now supports 3D LUTs)). The final solution was to load 3 variations of contrast into the 3 custom slots, which allows quick adjustments depending on lighting conditions. In practice, most of the time I use the flattest setting- here's an example shot today. It looks like what the eye saw at the time of shooting- even better than what I could get with the C300 II in the same conditions (From my tests, Canon DSLRs have more accurate color than their cinema cameras (closer match to what the eye sees)). Only change in post was to slightly lower blacks:

Does that look like ARRI or Canon?

Forehead skin tone patch level is from 61-78 IRE and color sits just right of the skin tone line (touching it). The 1DX II only provides a histogram and I did the camera/light set up using an old Sony XBR5 52" TV by eye (24-70 F2.8 II @ F2.8, 1/50, ISO 200, 4600K, 2 Aputure LS1s and an LS1/2 through light diffusion, plus a hair light through diffusion). This was done with limited time, and didn't have time to hook up a preamp to use the Schoeps CMC641 for audio (C300 II easier there!). A cool feature of the 1DX II is line-level support with a preamp. Found the lav picks up more room echo (hadn't used it before in this location (Sennheiser G3)). We normally shoot on green screen and I see that I can get more creative for lighting to better separate the subject from the background- next time!

EDIT: slightly styled version with post-diffusion + higher contrast and saturation (by copying the video track, Gaussian blurring, and Overlay blending- no direct color/contrast adjustments):

 

[AndreeOnline]

I realized that log emulations didn't provide any more (usable)* dynamic range, but also thinned out the mid tones where skin tones live.

Indeed they don't. They can't magically increase Full Well Saturation or change core aspects of the sensor. It's a pretty common misconception that decreasing contrast is the same as increasing dynamic range.

But they do even out the distribution of light values, which lessens overall contrast, including over the skin tone range. I don't think there is a situation where log curves are at a disadvantage, per se, but when shooting to a thin codec like 8bit 420 in a low contrast situation, when the signal only uses a small part of the available bit range values, grading it back to standard contrast might spread the butter too thin.

If the shooting situation permits (contrast is within range, or some clipping is OK), it can be incredibly satisfying to shoot directly to an image profile that is 'ready to go'.


*= I would argue that log curves DO increase the usable dynamic range simply because they distribute linear stops more evenly. As soon as you add more contrast again, into a baked in codec, shifting around those stops (moving the contrast pivot) will add stress to the image. Then again, the whole point of a ready to to image profile is exactly to not have to shift the values around to much in post!

 

[jcs]

Indeed they don't. They can't magically increase Full Well Saturation or change core aspects of the sensor. It's a pretty common misconception that decreasing contrast is the same as increasing dynamic range.

But they do even out the distribution of light values, which lessens overall contrast, including over the skin tone range. I don't think there is a situation where log curves are at a disadvantage, per se, but when shooting to a thin codec like 8bit 420 in a low contrast situation, when the signal only uses a small part of the available bit range values, grading it back to standard contrast might spread the butter too thin.

If the shooting situation permits (contrast is within range, or some clipping is OK), it can be incredibly satisfying to shoot directly to an image profile that is 'ready to go'.


*= I would argue that log curves DO increase the usable dynamic range simply because they distribute linear stops more evenly. As soon as you add more contrast again, into a baked in codec, shifting around those stops (moving the contrast pivot) will add stress to the image. Then again, the whole point of a ready to to image profile is exactly to not have to shift the values around to much in post!

In your boating shots, it's a very high dynamic range, high contrast scene- "harsh lighting". That's where CineStyle/Log-emulation can work since you're kind of close to your final desired look: you won't be adding a lot of contrast. Which works fine in 8-bit 420 or 422 (1DX II).

Regarding contrast (and color) in general: I think cameras should have an option to shoot 'what the eye sees'. Canon's default settings have way too much contrast (DSLRs). For the C300 II, it's the same for 709, and of course the log profiles are flatter than what the eye sees (in most cases). In the above example, I could see the HDTV producing an image that looked very close to what the eye could see in both contrast and color (that's how I tuned the Picture Style). Curious why these cameras don't have such an option built in? Would certainly make matching cameras easier!