C500: Color Matrix Opinions

D

digitalinnovations

Well-known member
Since I have taken the plunge back into Canon with the C500 MkII’s after a long break (bought the original C100 when it launched) I am unfamiliar with some of the options and impacts they have on the image.

Right now the area I’m curious about is the color matrix options...I’m not sure if running “Neutral” or “Production” matrix is the way to go when using C-Log2 / Cinema Gamut? How much of an impact do these have on the footage and flexibility in post? It seems like the “production” matrix is supposed to make the colors more ARRI-like when you use the ARRI LUTs (or I would also assume if you graded manually) is this correct? Does this limit other options in post negatively somehow?

What are everyone’s thoughts / opinions on these two options and what they bring to the table?

Sorry if this is a stupid question; I just shot with these for the first time yesterday and trying to get familiar with how I can get the best / most flexible images out of the cameras.
 
My take on it is these don't matter much anymore in the highly advanced digital manipulation age.

Back in the day several 5-6-7 years ago, it was easy to set and match a bunch of cameras with them, but today they are there more because it's SOP. Built-in looks inside the camera. Or paint settings. Slight variations in hues and saturation.

Not everyone is going to have the same tastes so one setting over another may not be the best for everyone. Choose what looks/works best for you.

And this is what the manual says:

CM.jpg
 
Yeah, the manual definition is kinda...vague...but that may be all there is to say.

For my needs, I rarely just slap a LUT on and “call it done” or shoot footage with a burnt-in look but there are cases where that is exactly what’s needed.

I guess I was just curious if the matrix really had any impact when shooting LOG or gives you a better starting point to build your grade from.

With the footage I just shot yesterday I obviously don’t have the ability to compare the two matrix options but I’m planning on doing some skin-tone tests tomorrow or Monday so I’ll try to shoot in both and see what’s what.
 
IMO, you may find very little differences between them in practice.

I had the same question years ago and of course just typed it into YouTube/Vimeo and watched a bunch of videos, and my conclusion was that out of the box it's sometimes impossible to tell the difference, especially if the colors that they may affect are not in the frame.

Random video showing some variations on the 300 II: https://vimeo.com/149836985
 
Thanks for sharing that! It’s better than the ones I found; some were just the menu settings.

You’re right, the differences are subtle in that example and seem like they could be accomplished / undone in a grade.

I’ll be eager to see what the options do in my tests because there are things you just don’t know in someone else’s test...like in that example the “production” matrix appears the specular highlight on her forehead loses saturation faster but that could also be that the talent had been there for a while and began to perspire a bit. Or I believe one of OwlBot’s videos mentioned that ARRI’s skin-tones have a higher luminance in general...although that would seem like a gamma thing...but now I’m just rambling...all of this stuff is just fascinating to me.
 
That fascination quickly turns into mental torture, lol.

You end up being unable to settle on a look because they can all look good, ha.
 
You are exactly right! I’ve spent literally years going back and forth and trying out new approaches / settings / etc. to find that “perfect combo” and I never do. On any decent size project I always end up starting from scratch.

I think “that” is what you actually pay for with ARRI; I never spent any time on settings or anything with my Amira or Mini. I just plopped on LOG and away I went but with my BetaCam, DVCPro or HPX500, C100, FS7...I was constantly tweaking things and it appears the C500 MkII will be no different :)
 
TEST!

That's the only way to really understand what's going on, and what you prefer.

Setup a shot that's NOTHING like the test video posted above. You want a face and skintone, certainly. But you really need to be seeing colours, fruits, fabrics, a bookcase, foliage of some sort, ideally some very hot, overexposed details in the frame, and some deep shadow details in the frame.

Then you can run through the different matrixes and decide which has the overall balance you prefer.

I'd then suggest just sticking with that.

I only ever want a single gamut and gamma to have to worry about with a camera. Because then everything I ever shoot with it will be exposed in the same ways and graded in the same ways - the consistency gives you the opportunity to gain familiarity with the image (where it breaks and where it excels), and that always just lifts the results you get with them.
 
digitalinnovations said:
I’m curious about is the color matrix options...I’m not sure if running “Neutral” or “Production” matrix is the way to go when using C-Log2 / Cinema Gamut? How much of an impact do these have on the footage and flexibility in post? It seems like the “production” matrix is supposed to make the colors more ARRI-like when you use the ARRI LUTs (or I would also assume if you graded manually) is this correct?
Click to expand...

Clog2/Cinegamut/Neutral appeared to be the closest to Arri on the vectorscope when I ran my tests/was matching the two. They still required a decent amount of manipulation in the color matrix settings to match in a meaningful way but straight out of the box I'd stick with CGamut/Neutral to get close.

digitalinnovations said:
I believe one of OwlBot’s videos mentioned that ARRI’s skin-tones have a higher luminance in general...although that would seem like a gamma thing.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm not sure if it's a gamma thing but each camera tends to handle various colors' luminance differently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top