RX10 Skin Tones

[jimagine]

Shot a few skin tests in afternoon light using the range of profiles to compare - Natural, Deep, Portrait, Standard and Light all -3-3-3.
I've been using Natural -3-3-3 as a start and wanted to see them side by side.
Using a vector scope, Natural is the profile that hits the skin line dead on.
Deep has similar DR but it's too saturated and tinted even at -3s

Natural -3s won hands down for me in terms of a start for grading.
Then I wanted to see how that clip would look with Filmconvert using the standard RGB profile, in this case Kodak 400 kept the best skin line.

Then I worked on developing a Magic Bullet preset for Nat -3a with a subtle set of curves, shoulder, cosmo, warm/cool and side by side it was the nicest look of the day.
I can definitely shoot scripted work with this.

 

[dustylense]

Looking forward to seeing some of your shots from the camera. I'm gonna take a guess that you are pleased with this camera?

 

[jimagine]

Looking forward to seeing some of your shots from the camera. I'm gonna take a guess that you are pleased with this camera?

Yeah, there's a lot to really like about it.
I'm in the edit room all week so I still haven't had time to do much but these set up tests.
One thing I thing I think is true and this is after grading hundreds of GH3 clips in the ed film I just finished, is that I think this is as robust for grading as the GH3.
I've been able to push secondaries (where things always fall apart) maybe even a step further w/ color and exposure - but regardless so far it surprisingly solid for what it is.

I really do like the Natural -3's as a starting point for a curve in MB which I like better than FC for this camera I think, but it depends on the style of the work.
What's encouraging is that the CC'd out of the camera, FC and MB tweaks all have a nice and different look while holding together well.

Fun camera too.

 

[dan.carter]

Shot a few skin tests in afternoon light using the range of profiles to compare - Natural, Deep, Portrait, Standard and Light all -3-3-3.
I've been using Natural -3-3-3 as a start and wanted to see them side by side.
Using a vector scope, Natural is the profile that hits the skin line dead on.
Deep has similar DR but it's too saturated and tinted even at -3s

Natural -3s won hands down for me in terms of a start for grading.
Then I wanted to see how that clip would look with Filmconvert using the standard RGB profile, in this case Kodak 400 kept the best skin line.

Then I worked on developing a Magic Bullet preset for Nat -3a with a subtle set of curves, shoulder, cosmo, warm/cool and side by side it was the nicest look of the day.
I can definitely shoot scripted work with this.

I remember this being on your wish list. Glad to hear it's working out for you.

 

[jimagine]

OK, this is completely unfair to my wife so I'll explain the second shot quickly.
We just got in from snowshoeing yesterday and there was a beam of sun coming through the window w/ the sun just about to disappear behind the mountain.
I wanted to test skin in natural light and compare all of the relevant settings (Neutral, Standard, Deep, Portrait) all dialed off as I'd shoot them.
So sans make up, or brush she kindly sat for a minute on the arm of the chair while I cycled through the settings in the minute before the sun set..
As I thought, Neutral -3-3-3 is the flattest chroma and luma and by far the most correct on a vector scope.

The other shot was also from the first time I fired up the BMPCC last week.

They're obviously completely different keys and framing and tones, but two cameras, shooting skin for the first time.
To me what's important is the quality I was able to see in a few minutes with the RX10.

For the RX10 medium shot, I'm using the basic sRGB profile in Filmconvert , 0 grain, and Kodak P400
The CU is the BMPCC Film profile, 0 grain, Fuji 8653 stock.
Both CC'd in FCPX

 

[dan.carter]

View attachment 80104View attachment 80103OK, this is completely unfair to my wife so I'll explain the second shot quickly.
We just got in from snowshoeing yesterday and there was a beam of sun coming through the window w/ the sun just about to disappear behind the mountain.
I wanted to test skin in natural light and compare all of the relevant settings (Neutral, Standard, Deep, Portrait) all dialed off as I'd shoot them.
So sans make up, or brush she kindly sat for a minute on the arm of the chair while I cycled through the settings in the minute before the sun set..
As I thought, Neutral -3-3-3 is the flattest chroma and luma and by far the most correct on a vector scope.

The other shot was also from the first time I fired up the BMPCC last week.

They're obviously completely different keys and framing and tones, but two cameras, shooting skin for the first time.
To me what's important is the quality I was able to see in a few minutes with the RX10.

For the RX10 medium shot, I'm using the basic sRGB profile in Filmconvert , 0 grain, and Kodak P400
The CU is the BMPCC Film profile, 0 grain, Fuji 8653 stock.
Both CC'd in FCPX

Nicely done. I remember your wife from your first GH3 videos.

 

[markr041]

View attachment 80104View attachment 80103OK, this is completely unfair to my wife so I'll explain the second shot quickly.
We just got in from snowshoeing yesterday and there was a beam of sun coming through the window w/ the sun just about to disappear behind the mountain.
I wanted to test skin in natural light and compare all of the relevant settings (Neutral, Standard, Deep, Portrait) all dialed off as I'd shoot them.
So sans make up, or brush she kindly sat for a minute on the arm of the chair while I cycled through the settings in the minute before the sun set..
As I thought, Neutral -3-3-3 is the flattest chroma and luma and by far the most correct on a vector scope.

The other shot was also from the first time I fired up the BMPCC last week.

They're obviously completely different keys and framing and tones, but two cameras, shooting skin for the first time.
To me what's important is the quality I was able to see in a few minutes with the RX10.

For the RX10 medium shot, I'm using the basic sRGB profile in Filmconvert , 0 grain, and Kodak P400
The CU is the BMPCC Film profile, 0 grain, Fuji 8653 stock.
Both CC'd in FCPX

I'm sorry, I don't understand the point of this "comparison". You need to color correct appropriately the BMPCC shot to get correct skin tones. There is no doubt that OOC the RX10 delivers a better picture; you have to be at least a somewhat skilled color grader and have experience with the output to realize the much better potential of the BMPCC. Tweaking LUTs alone is inadequate. If the BMPCC picture is your best, you should stick to the RX10. Using the BMPCC requires more editing skill with what it produces (whatever your prior experience). My experience is that BMPCC RAW is easier to work with and produces better results compared with Pro Res.

4:2:2, 10-bit versus 4:2:0, 8-bit -are you really claiming the heavily compressed AVCHD RX10 video is as flexible in post for editing and grading? No way.

 

[dustylense]

I'm sorry, I don't understand the point of this "comparison". You need to color correct appropriately the BMPCC shot to get correct skin tones. There is no doubt that OOC the RX10 delivers a better picture; you have to be at least a somewhat skilled color grader and have experience with the output to realize the much better potential of the BMPCC. Tweaking LUTs alone is inadequate. If the BMPCC picture is your best, you should stick to the RX10. Using the BMPCC requires more editing skill with what it produces (whatever your prior experience). My experience is that BMPCC RAW is easier to work with and produces better results compared with Pro Res.

4:2:2, 10-bit versus 4:2:0, 8-bit -are you really claiming the heavily compressed AVCHD RX10 video is as flexible in post for editing and grading? No way.

LOL, this is the guy that ran his trap on another forum I visited.

Mark041.... First, Jimagine is not comparing. He's showing examples of two cameras he recently acquired. Nothing more, nothing less. He is just sharing early looks out of two completely different cameras and post notes on the possibility of maybe blending the two on a project. He's not trying to so any "shootout" here.

Second..."you have to be at least a somewhat skilled color grader and have experience with the output to realize the much better potential of the BMPCC". Really?!?! I think Jimagine understands the difference between the cameras, the color spaces, the bit rate and codec.

You say, "Using the BMPCC requires more editing skill with what it produces". More editing "skill"? Skill? Editing is editing and color correcting is color correcting. "EDITING" skill? Are you confusing "editing" as being an "editor" with "color grading" as being a "colorist". Ya know, those people that get credits after every movie you watch? Editing and coloring are two different things.

"You need to color correct appropriately the BMPCC shot to get correct skin tones". What? Looks like the skin tones are color corrected to me...


"My experience is that BMPCC RAW is easier to work with and produces better results compared with Pro Res" Ok Charlie, post some examples for us to judge your statement. Meaning, provide a link to your vimeo or youtube.

I've seen Jimgine's work over and over. I can stand on his side here and understand what this posts purpose is.

 

[dustylense]

"4:2:2, 10-bit versus 4:2:0, 8-bit -are you really claiming the heavily compressed AVCHD RX10 video is as flexible in post for editing and grading? No way"

Where in any post do you see that????? WHERE? Copy paste it!

 

[jimagine]

I If the BMPCC picture is your best, you should stick to the RX10.

What?
We're having a friendly conversation. I just got both cameras.
Did you read what I wrote, they were my first shots that I took with both cameras...in a few minutes.

Your comments have nothing to do with my post.
This is exactly the kind of nonsense that keeps people from sharing their experience.

 

[jimagine]

I've seen Jimgine's work over and over. I can stand on his side here and understand what this posts purpose is.

Thanks for understanding <g>.
Back to the point. I'm producing a ski resort TV campaign over the holidays that I'm hoping to use the RX10 for some shots.
And we have a New Years deadline for another tourism campaign that I'll use the BMPCC on if I can get it where I'm comfortable by then.
I'll send you links after the two campaigns after the first.

 

[Ken7]

I actually thought the flesh tones looked perfectly fine in both cameras Jim. In fact they were remarkably similar...well it's actually not so 'remarkable'. :happy:

On another forum there's a guy (not Mark) who continually disses anything not BM. I've gone many rounds with him. What he and many others seem to miss is that nobody is disputing that the BM has a greater DR than the RX10. However, what he and others never seem to grasp is that the vast majority of time that greater DR will rarely be used effectively.

Why do I say 'effectively'? Because guys like him will forever post shots of things like couches in front of bright windows where both the exterior sky and interior couch are equally well exposed. Never mind the fact that there's never any attention paid to the question of 'what's the subject?'. If it's the couch, do we really care if the outside sky is well exposed? In fact, is the properly exposed sky not a distraction to the subject?

Similarly I've suggested to pay attention to most Hollywood movies where the actor is standing in front of a window or a subject is being shot outside. In almost all cases the sky is blown. Do we really think the megabuck cinema cameras that were used were not capable of properly exposing both subject and sky simultaneously? Of course they were, but the director understood what the subject was and knew how to avoid distractions to the audience.

Again, no disputing the greater dynamic range or color space of cameras like the BMPCC. However, with that said, I think I can count on one hand (with a couple of fingers left to spare) the number of videos where I truly felt the results were better than what I've seen from a camera like the RX10...and that's without all of the extra time spent bringing out the highlights and shadow detail while also color correcting...the essential components of working with RAW video.

I know it's heresy, but it sure seems to me that a camera like the RX10 does a better job with color with its internal profiles than the overwhelming majority of guys doing their own cc'ing with RAW video. Achieving truly excellent results with RAW video does not seem to be child's play.

 

[Razz16mm]

I know it's heresy, but it sure seems to me that a camera like the RX10 does a better job with color with its internal profiles than the overwhelming majority of guys doing their own cc'ing with RAW video. Achieving truly excellent results with RAW video does not seem to be child's play.

This is certainly true. I'm sure Sony's camera engineers know more about color theory and value scales than most shooters. It requires some degree of both theoretical knowledge and skill to grade raw footage. Not a lot to get started, but you are more likely to learn the necessities in a painting class than in photography or video classes.

 

[Michael Schrengohst]

I have a BMCC and HAD a BMPCC - the pocket camera was almost useless for what I do. I was excited about it but it was a real let-down.
I tried every lens I had with it and just was not comfortable with it. I really takes adding on some decent electronic viewfinder
option to work outdoors in bright sunlight. I found that option - the RX10.

I am really thinking of dumping the BMCC and getting a second RX10. Look for it after the first of the year in the sales thread.

 

[Ken7]

Even if the BM produced great quality with relatively minimal efforts (which it doesn't), the lack of a real VF and 60p are deal breakers for me. I think the ergonomics of the BMPCC are just lacking. The whole 'mystique' somehow eludes me.

The RX10 is a complete package, produces great results with minimal effort and is, IMO, a better 'real world' camera. The fact that it's really fun to use, doesn't hurt either.

 

[stoneinapond]

The whole 'mystique' somehow eludes me.

The RX10 is a complete package, produces great results with minimal effort and is, IMO, a better 'real world' camera. The fact that it's really fun to use, doesn't hurt either.

The Blackmagic cameras aren't about fun. They compete strictly on IQ in which department they absolutely shine. In this instance it sounds like for you "real world" = point and shoot functionality, which is fair enough.

Just for clarification, the RX10 is not something I'm interested in personally, but it's interesting to watch the play. :happy:

 

[Wesley Byram]

The Blackmagic cameras aren't about fun. They compete strictly on IQ in which department they absolutely shine.

Well...at least until the chroma moire, white orbs, black holes*, or scrolling lines show up.:happy: It's not always about IQ but also QA. [ducks for cover]

Point is, these tools all have their strengths and weaknesses: horses for courses and all that. I came really close to ordering a BMPCC, but after reading about people's experences with them in actual use, decided to spend the money on an RX10 instead. Without going into a point-by-point diatribe, it seems like the more practical tool in most circumstances that I would be throwing at it. Of course, they're both so cheap (relatively speaking) that one could easily own the two of them, and use whatever the situation requires.


*Edit: Yes, the white orbs and black hole problems appear to now be resolved by firmware updates.

 

[OlegKalyan]

so far footage from RX10 looks better than anything shot with BMCC, in terms of skin tone, resolution, color, dynamic range on paper matters, from my h.o.