Canon's color science is wrong in the right way / Matching Alexa Color / A7S tuning

jcs

Veteran
Canon cameras sell very well because they make people look great by creating very pleasing skintones. Apparently for technical reasons (silicon sensors, etc.), Canon makes skintones look great at the expense of color accuracy. ARRI is the undisputed* King of Color Science and reading about how to make a C300 somewhat match an Alexa may be helpful in setting up new cameras such as the GH4 and A7S to produce more pleasing skintones (at the expense of color accuracy): http://provideocoalition.com/aadams/story/color-matching-a-canon-c300-to-an-arri-alexa

Art noted that digital cameras do the best in daylight (~5500K) due to sensor response to blue. While I too have noticed that Sony, for example, does much better in sunlight, I've found that cameras also do well in Tungsten (~3200K). While Tungsten doesn't have much blue, it is a continuous spectrum light, and that I believe is the most important issue.

Cameras have the most trouble in mixed light (fluorescent + incandescent + LED, etc.) or light sources with large gaps in the spectrum (some fluorescent and many LED lights). I had no idea what kind of light this was, however AWB with the A7S wasn't too far off (minor WB adjust in post: still a bit magenta but that's the look I wanted):
DeltaBokeh.jpg


In the Art Adams article above, he had to make custom profiles (mostly the special Color Matrix) for each desired color temperature (two provided). This makes it clear that getting pleasing (and/or accurate) color for a wide variety of color temperatures and light sources is a very challenging technical problem. Face/skintone detection is one way manufacturers try to deal with the problem (regardless of race, all skintones have similar color properties (along the 'skintone' line on the vectorscope:
Skin-Tone-Line.png
).

It's not likely there's anything we can do to picture profiles on cameras to improve color performance vs. factory settings for general use. If we tweak colors for a particular WB and light source, it won't be correct for another light source with different spectral properties. Thus, if someone posts a tweaked color profile that changes WB colors or general color matrices, keep in mind those tweaks might not work correctly for your particular situation.


* this is the internet, so the likelihood of disputing is much greater than zero. The Sony F35 and F65 can produce great color, and the new RED Dragon and associated color science is looking very good. The camera system most people prefer in terms of color is the ARRI Alexa (now +Amira).
 
Have you heard of Sony's Alexa clone LUTs released earlier this year for F5/F55/F65? They are available for slog2, slog3, and I made an experimental one for the original slog (F3, F35, FS700, etc..) which has produced some interesting results. (head to Sony forum section)

With the CFA of the F55/F65 (identical) exceeding the color gamut of film and meeting ACES specifications, these new CineAlta's are truly capable of practically any "look". The color science is truly amazing and kudos to Sony for working on this.
 
Thanks for the info Dennis. I found this thread via google search: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?325811-Revenge-of-the-Film-Emulation-LUTs-on-the-Sony-F55
Do you use a different 3D LUT depending on color temperature? My understanding is that a single 3D LUT won't really work to emulate something like an Alexa.
Perhaps a 3D LUT per major color temperature with in-camera dynamic 3D LUT interpolation for in-between color temps could work?
It might be even more complex and require 3D-LUTs for major steps in ISO too. In the above thread I picked the Alexa from the still, the F5 was greenish and yellowish and the subject didn't look as 'healthy' as the left image.
A 'ballpark' 3D LUT for the A7S to Alexa would be popular :)
 
Back
Top