Relative noob here with a normal monitor balanced the best i can. In response to the initial video, I couldn't really tell any difference in skin tones. The only difference I noticed on close second inspection was that the blacks on the Alexa were very slightly less black. I guessed straight away when I saw camera X that it was the Sony because of the sharpness, which was confirmed when I saw the softer image of camera Y. I think the Alexa looked more movie like because of this, so I think the f55 would be more suited to documentaries or product commercials. If used for narrative, perhaps a very slight blur could be added to the F55.
F55: F55 vs Alexa skin tone demonstration
- Thread starter starcentral
- Start date
Grug
Veteran
I'd guess Alexa on the left, F55 on the right.
Admit One
Active member
Like film, when shooting raw all images must be "developed". Each camera has its own "best" settings which can often change from scene to scene. My goal was simply to try to see if the skin tone of the cameras could be intercut.
Given the reputation of the Alexa, I was quite surprised with the result.
With Resolve, I was able to readily match the images. Not perfectly, just a quick grade. Either could be made one more or less pink, contrasty, etc., but that's what a colorist better than me easily does.
As I mentioned, four ASC DP's picked the image on the right as the "best" (none chose the left) at NAB. But that camera is not an F55, it's ... drum roll ... an F5!
It's also a bit ironic that executives of Sony and Arri both chose their competitors camera.
Cheers.
Given the reputation of the Alexa, I was quite surprised with the result.
With Resolve, I was able to readily match the images. Not perfectly, just a quick grade. Either could be made one more or less pink, contrasty, etc., but that's what a colorist better than me easily does.
As I mentioned, four ASC DP's picked the image on the right as the "best" (none chose the left) at NAB. But that camera is not an F55, it's ... drum roll ... an F5!
It's also a bit ironic that executives of Sony and Arri both chose their competitors camera.
Cheers.
Last edited:
lightstrum
Well-known member
Which camera or which sister?
Seriously, what a great study of what makes siblings alike and what makes them different, and by extension the slight variations that gives a camera or lens a "personality". And further extension what the shooter and, or, director (and, colorist?) brings to the vibe.
This was a really great piece of work- I am passing it on to a friend who is having a hard time with his sons choice. These fine young women really "show" not "tell" in the the way that committed artists can, bravo to all involved.
Grug
Veteran
Like film, when shooting raw all images must be "developed". Each camera has its own "best" settings which can often change from scene to scene. My goal was simply to try to see if the skin tone of the cameras could be intercut.
Given the reputation of the Alexa, I was quite surprised with the result.
With Resolve, I was able to readily match the images. Not perfectly, just a quick grade. Either could be made one more or less pink, contrasty, etc., but that's what a colorist better than me easily does.
As I mentioned, four ASC DP's picked the image on the right as the "best" (none chose the left) at NAB. But that camera is not an F55, it's ... drum roll ... an F5!
It's also a bit ironic that executives of Sony and Arri both chose their competitors camera.
Cheers.
Very interesting. Glad to know I can still pick 'em. Personally I still prefer the look of the Arri (that's probably the main reason I picked the image on the left - I prefer the 'look' of it), but honestly the only real differences in those images is slightly richer and more-pleasing contrast in the Arri sample, along with a smidgen less green in the skin-tones (which is what spoils the F5 sample IMO) but both of those qualities can be completely balanced in about 20-30 seconds in Resolve. I'm a little surprised that most picked the F5 as their preferred option given the way those two samples look.
Says a lot for what Sony's managed to achieve though. I for one am loving the images I'm getting from my F5 (even a little more so than my F3), I just wish it wasn't such a pain-in-the-arse operationally.
Nate Weaver
Veteran
I've been playing with some film emulation 3D LUTs both live on the 55 and in Resolve/FCPX/Raw Viewer.
I'll regret going on the record later, but I think the next step is going to be a proliferation of looks based on scanned film LUTs, tweaked for in-camera usage, and people loading those in after they get bored with how the manufacturer thinks their camera should look. 3D LUTs in every camera.
I bought the Vision Color Impulz series, and it seems they are well done.
I'll regret going on the record later, but I think the next step is going to be a proliferation of looks based on scanned film LUTs, tweaked for in-camera usage, and people loading those in after they get bored with how the manufacturer thinks their camera should look. 3D LUTs in every camera.
I bought the Vision Color Impulz series, and it seems they are well done.
starcentral
Veteran
Done. Sold. Now I regret you saying it! 
No seriously after shooting almost a week now with LC-709A baked into 4K XAVC and no more trying use magic pixie dust to bring slog2/3 back to normal - I can totally see the next evolutionary step creating "looks" via 3D LUT's that you load in camera...
This is exciting times.
No seriously after shooting almost a week now with LC-709A baked into 4K XAVC and no more trying use magic pixie dust to bring slog2/3 back to normal - I can totally see the next evolutionary step creating "looks" via 3D LUT's that you load in camera...
This is exciting times.
Grug
Veteran
I suppose the nice thing about having the LUTs in camera, is that you can get your fill ratios right (for the LUT) in-camera. Which can certainly save some dicking around in post.
However, whether shooting-for-the-LUT is actually going to be more efficient than tweaking-the-LUT-to-suit in post... I don't know.
However, whether shooting-for-the-LUT is actually going to be more efficient than tweaking-the-LUT-to-suit in post... I don't know.
Nate Weaver
Veteran
I myself don't think the two are the same. You can lift shadows in post, but it's you imply lifting the whole frame and def gives a different look.
Assuming I can, I'd rather always get ratios right while shooting.
Shoot with a LUT of your choosing, and ask post to start with a LUT of your choosing. DP's prerogative, I feel. If they toss out your LUT in color, well, that's another discussion, but at the very least they should know how the DP visualized and wanted it. That's one reason why I do my own dailies.
SJX
Veteran
Yes LUTs are the new magic bullet and I see it become sad like magic bullet and all cheap plugins did. I know LUT is more complex and not same as preset but it does same job. I know LUT is not always final color but still. You know my point.