C200: I would like your professional opinion.

NorBro

NorBro

Major Contributor
I would like to share the following stills with you and receive all of your professional opinions.

If you've seen them before, please don't comment which video it is and/or share any other details. I only ask this question now because of a recent business inquiry. I've been around the block and I respect all of you...the common posters and all newcomers just chiming in. I would like to hear everyone's thoughts if you're interested.

Straight up, honest opinion...how do these look to you?

Which camera? Grading? 8-bit? 10-bit? 4:2:0? 4:2:2? RAW? How much editing has been put into this?

Stills are stills and will never prove any point like motion will, but just wondering what you think.

Thank you for participating in my "focus group".

P.S. I've posted this here in this section (and had to choose a prefix) because I usually hang out here, but I encourage all feedback. Thank you for your time.
 
Last edited:
Are these all the same project? Some of the skin tones on the women particularly look pretty unusual, not in a good way. I have no idea of the camera, bit rate, data rate and in my mind, none of that matters anyway. I am of the opinion that good DPs can make any camera sing, even crappy ones and they can make good cameras look their best. The more I learn about video specs, the less I care about them. I've always been about doing more with less since that is the way the industry has moved for the past decade, I am not lucky and accomplished enough to be an A-list DP and I am working more toward writing and directing my own films and I want to hire guys like Charles Papert and some of the other accomplished pros who post here rather than trying to become them. That's why I buy sub-$10k cameras. Sure, better cameras have better specs but I can still make really beautiful images with my massively outdated C100 because it's a good, just outdated camera with a great sensor. Okay, enough soapbox, I am curious to see what this was and how and why it was shot the way it was. How long are you going to keep us in suspense before revealing? Who knows, maybe these were shot on an iPhone? These all apear to be shot on a camera with limited dynamic range? But for all I know, this could be shot on an Alexa by someone who doesn't know what they are doing, I don't know. WIth grading and Photoshop on stills, it can be tough to tell. I've seen beautiful iPhone and Samsung Galaxy footage and bad looking RED and Arri footage. It's more about the DP and gaffer than the camera these days overall.

Frame 1 has a harshness to her face that I don't feel makes her look her best. Overall the frame looks a bit too detailed and kind of harsh for my taste. But assuming this is narrative work, perhaps that is what the director wanted to show about her character?
Frame 2 has a nice composition but overall, I find his skin tone to look pretty funky. A bit harsh and digital looking to me also?
Frame 3 is more contrasty than I would make it. But once again, matter of taste, director and DPs taste? I am not enthralled with the skin tone here at all, it's not a good look for the actor
Frame 4 His white shirt is quite a bit brighter than his face, which bugs me. I am old school, in interviews and mediums/CUs, I generally like having the talent's face pop out more than their white shirt but that could be a creative decision? Also, way too contrasty, there is little detail in the image except the actor.
Frame 5 The talent on the right's skin tone is really unflattering, the lighting is very frontal, flat and a bit harsh. It looks like she is lit, it doesn't appear that her or the guy are in the real world, they look as if they are on a set, being lit.
 
Last edited:
I like the colors on the "lady in red" and the old dude. The problem is ...

I don't like the colors on 1, 2 and 5.

But it's a lighting and grading rather than a camera problem.

PS. Norbert, you can have a professional opinion or you can have mine. Take your pick.
 
Last edited:
I like the fact that they have actual colour and saturation and are not faux log.

Some skin seems (out of context) a little yellow and the last one is indeed lit oddly in a solo context.
 
I'll go ahead and take a shot in the dark. Harder to tell from low resolution frame grabs and I don't expect my guesses to be correct.

Why do people always seem to upload low res photos on here? I typically try to upload at least 1080 photos, or at least a link to the full res photo, when trying to show the image quality from camera shots on here. I guess if all you're trying to show is the lighting and colors then lower res is fine.

I find the point of these posts often seems to be, "If you can't tell the difference between an Alexa and a GH2 then may as well just shoot with a GH2 (which I can also actually afford, which is totally coincidental to me making this argument in favor of cheaper cameras, obviously)." But there's a lot more to cameras than whether or not one can recognize the difference between cameras in a blind test. Try working with that same GH2 in a large variety of lighting situations with blown highlights, low light, extensive post grading, needing SDI, XLRs, and various other pro features, and while the blind test may have shown them to be on par with an Alexa, actual use does not.

So, I don't find the whole, "You all guessed wrong" argument to really prove much.

With that disclaimer said, here goes...


View attachment 126043
Black Magic Ursa Mini

View attachment 126044
Black Magic Ursa Mini

View attachment 126045
GH4 (or 5)

View attachment 126046
GH4 (or 5)

View attachment 126047
Canon 1DC
 
Last edited:
I like contrast but think these are a bit too crushed in the blacks for my tastes and the skin does look weird in a lot of these shots. I would guess a Sony probably 8 bit
 
Blacks are kind of crushed (good or bad, your choice) and the skin tones all have a bit of olive or slight sepia feel to them. I won't bite on the which camera or bitrate angle as most any modern camera can make images like this with post attention.
 
I'll play, number 2 and 5 look like low bit rate FS700. The rest are either FS700 RAW or BMCC. That said, they could also be an el cheapo dslr - difficult to judge on compressed jpgs.

Can't say I'm a fan of the look, be them in camera or post. Way too heavy for my taste. Skin tones look unflattering in all but number 1 and 4. As for composition and lighting, it's almost impossible to give fair feedback without context The woman in the kitchen is the strongest composition, but none of the frames really stand out to me, number 1 is in desperate need of a hair light and I don't like the mixed light in that one or the last one.
 
The tonal range in the shadows is virtually non existent, it is very crushed.

For example the filtered images only shows 0-20% and 80-100% luma values while everything else in the middle is colored red:

4i_1.1.1_1.1.2.jpg
5i_1.1.3.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thank you all!

So there really is no purpose to this post besides just wanting to gather some thoughts from people with different minds and levels of experience.

The skin tones vary a bit because I was messing around too much with the white balance matrix. I also used two cheap LEDs, but not sure how much that contributed to the overall look. I stink at lighting though, haha…not really my thing.

All of this was shot on the Sony a6300 with a burned-in LUT via an Atomos recorder. (It's also why I posted in this section to see what Canon shooters might conclude.)

S-Log3. 8-bit. 4:2:2 via HDMI enabled in the camera.

There was no color correction or grading at all. And when I say that, I don't mean I added contrast and saturation but nothing else…not a single clip was altered. ProRes files straight off of the SSD into the software - arrange/cut the clips in the timeline - export.

For the past 2 years, I have been obsessed with burning-in LUTs using various cameras (with LOG options and must output 4K)...a6300, C500, URSA, FS5, LS300, GH5. For the a6300, I initially ended up choosing this one (it's all the same LUT) because it hid the S-Log3 noise so well (a lot was shot at high ISOs). I didn't mind the crushed blacks at the time, but after further evaluation - initiated by concurring thoughts on the heavy shadows - I adjusted the workflow. Using a different modified LUT or even lifting the shadows in FCP X by 5% brightened up the dark areas nicely (see below).

Kind of working backwards and preserving as much quality as possible as opposed to shooting flat and then heavily stressing the file with modifications. (Goes back to the idea of painting the picture inside the camera and getting it "right"...but by burning in a LUT, which wasn't easily possible just a few years ago.)

I use various cameras on projects and this a6300 look was commonly favored. It was described as more "cinematic" and "filmic" than other cameras I showcased. Again, that doesn't mean much, but lately I've been questioning what people are really seeing in an image. What does the brain analyze first? Is an aggressive "pop" intriguing?

Anyway, here's the video if you are interested in taking a look. If you watch it in 4K, you can evaluate the moving images if interested as opposed to the compressed stills (which are from a H.264 file because I unfortunately don't have the original footage anymore).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top