It seems odd that cameras costing huge amounts of money cant produce good colour without messing with it,i am no pro no expert just an amateur whos enjoyed filming 4o years,my current 4k camera cost £750 and produces colour that i realy like ,some of the stuff on tv does not always look good IMO but its true a lot does.
FS7: This grading thing (or why choose Cine IE or Custom mode)
- Thread starter Publimix
- Start date
basspig
Veteran
The color science on each generation of Sony cams continues to improve. I recently observed that FS7 can differentiate subtle differences in shades of red that my EX3 could not. Example: red numeric LED displays. Some have a more orange/red appearance, and others are cherry red. My EX3 renders them all orange/red, while the FS7 shows them as they are: distinctly, but subtly different shades.
The power of LUTs, and S-Log... we are only just beginning to discover the tip of the iceberg. And the one who masters the Art of the LUT, will be able to achieve unprecidented control over the look of the images this camera produces. Download a copy of LUTcalc and start playing with the advanced features, after you've mastered the basic ones, and see how you can do things with the color rendering that most post NLE tools can't accomplish. This is an area I wish to devote some study to. I think it is the key to unlocking the power of Sony's color science in the FS7.
The power of LUTs, and S-Log... we are only just beginning to discover the tip of the iceberg. And the one who masters the Art of the LUT, will be able to achieve unprecidented control over the look of the images this camera produces. Download a copy of LUTcalc and start playing with the advanced features, after you've mastered the basic ones, and see how you can do things with the color rendering that most post NLE tools can't accomplish. This is an area I wish to devote some study to. I think it is the key to unlocking the power of Sony's color science in the FS7.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
But what if I don't like that color? I'd be stuck because the range of options are quite limited with a consumer camer, cell phone, etc. A high-end pro camera is designed for use by professionals who want (and have the ability) to dial in a huge range of looks and styles for all different kinds of shooting scenarios. And everyone can have different style(s) they prefer. A pro camera gives you virtually unlimited control over EVERYTHING about the camera.
And please don't allow these endless less threads debating this setting, or that setting, give you the impression setting up a pro camera is difficult or a chore. It is something I devote a little time to when I first get a camera and then I am done. My cameras are dialed in the way I like them, I have my workflow sorted out, and on at typical day I just turn the camer on, confirm my settings, and record. Very simple.
Here's a secret that a lot of amateurs don't know: It is actually easy to shoot with a high end pro camera than a cheaper camera because they are designed to give you maximum manual control. The camera does exactly what you want and you don't have to fight it.
Why doesn't an F1 racing team just get a regular car off a dealer's lot? It would sure be easier!
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
One thing about video cams, esp Sony is that they are/were a little tricky. Sony have now opened everything up to give full freedom, but the next stage is creating simple 'start points' and easy workflow with meta data that travels across NLEs and the like. Slog2/3 luts are a great start.
I use Capture One for stills and it completely 'knows' that I was shooting on a 7d2 and how that camera was set. Sustaining what I saw on the back of the camera is trivial - but I have a miriad of options in post should I choose to deviate from that.
S
Nirv
Carbonite Member
I spent many days trying to get a consistent image out of the FS100, Sony's choice of tone curves combined with variable ND filters conspired to produce great images somedays horrid images others. It really required a lot of effort and it wasn't fun.
In comparison the FS7 is a dream and required very little work but the LUT workflow there's a real game changing potential. I'll be able to do look dev with a client in Resolve prior to shooting, put the look into the camera which can either be monitored or recorded direct to that LUT for quick turn around work. The potential is enormous. This is the area I'll be devoting my time and most certainly not a chore, it's about being able to do the job better than ever before.
Well i am not arguing with what you say,for instance[But what if I don't like that color? I'd be stuck because the range of options are quite limited with a consumer camer, cell phone, etc. A high-end pro camera is designed for use by professionals who want (and have the ability) to dial in a huge range of looks and styles for all different kinds of shooting scenarios. And everyone can have different style(s) they prefer. ]
All my current consumer camcorders and cameras have many options for getting the colour/ contrast/ sharpness /noise/saturation required,i agree what some say colour correction and grading are differnt things but my thought is if the camera is set to your liking colour correction should only be needed if a recorded clip goes wrong,the most alteration i usualy do to clips is alter the brightness if it turns out to be lighter or darker than i thought it would be at the exposure setting being used.
Last edited:
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Flinty, it's great that you have found cameras that meet your needs. My needs, and the needs of most professionals who I know, are obviously different and require a more sophisticated tool.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Flinty.
The world often displays many many stops of light variance (not to mention that our eyes are set to auto and ramp iris very quickly). Our delivery devices, screens in the main, cannot reproduce this variance.
So how do we represent that world on a crappy screen?
Maybe we let highlights blow or shadows get crushed, maybe we haul a huge light rig to control that variance, maybe we only shoot at magic hour when the variance compresses. All of these things can be done 'in camera' with a single look or setting.
Or maybe we shoot with our cameras set on a setting that can record more variance than the screen can display and then 'fit' our recorded image to the screen by making choices in post.
If we shoot in a setting like that then we are going to have to do work in post. It is the nature of the beast.
Now in the real world all or none of these things will happen, often not at the behest of the camera operator (who will surely vote to have a huge lights package and shoot raw only in magic hour)
What comes out of the end of the pipe? Some stuff that looks good and some less so. Often that is not really the skill of the camera operator, or the set up of the camera, but the whole pipe infrastructure which, being a business, in general will often be scrimping on light, time on set, weather days, and budget for post.
It has been clear to me since 'day one' that a 5d2 makes pretty pictures.. until you start throwing 'production realities' at it
S
The world often displays many many stops of light variance (not to mention that our eyes are set to auto and ramp iris very quickly). Our delivery devices, screens in the main, cannot reproduce this variance.
So how do we represent that world on a crappy screen?
Maybe we let highlights blow or shadows get crushed, maybe we haul a huge light rig to control that variance, maybe we only shoot at magic hour when the variance compresses. All of these things can be done 'in camera' with a single look or setting.
Or maybe we shoot with our cameras set on a setting that can record more variance than the screen can display and then 'fit' our recorded image to the screen by making choices in post.
If we shoot in a setting like that then we are going to have to do work in post. It is the nature of the beast.
Now in the real world all or none of these things will happen, often not at the behest of the camera operator (who will surely vote to have a huge lights package and shoot raw only in magic hour)
What comes out of the end of the pipe? Some stuff that looks good and some less so. Often that is not really the skill of the camera operator, or the set up of the camera, but the whole pipe infrastructure which, being a business, in general will often be scrimping on light, time on set, weather days, and budget for post.
It has been clear to me since 'day one' that a 5d2 makes pretty pictures.. until you start throwing 'production realities' at it
S
Last edited:
Nirv
Carbonite Member
If you knew how a lot of programmes were made you'd understand why they looked like cack. No time no money and not even dedicated camera operator shooting it. The Beeb likes its multi skilled producer/director/camera ops in their factual dept which was pioneered in local news gathering. A lot of local news output and package programme content is simply embarrassing. It won't be long before a lot of this will be shot on iPhones.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
No, that is not what we're talking about. That Dolby reference monitor has been around for several years. Dolby has been showing some new prototype systems that are amazing, next-gen stuff, but they are not listed on the website as they are not yet products.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Really? That is your argument against using high-end equipment? I now regret wasting my time trying to help you understand. You know, it is common in all professions for amateurs and people on the outside not to be able to understand the needs of the professional -- and I have nothing to gain by wasting more time trying to help you gain that knowledge. Carry on.
Grug
Veteran
And will possibly look better through the use of Instagram-type filters...
Run&Gun
Veteran
Unfortunately now, a LOT of content is being shot on sub-standard equipment("prosumer" and lower) and there is no asterisk or anything else marking it and indicating it as such to the home viewer.
In reference to one of clients, I told someone recently that if they knew just how much content was "on-air" that was being done on $5K "handycams" and cellphone packs it would blow their mind. They also just did a feature interview and claimed that they "didn't have a budget" for it and shot it with handycams they own. This is also a company that profits in the BILLIONS every year. It's sadly just about filling the black holes between commercials, whether that content is quality or not...
basspig
Veteran
People in general, just don't care about video and sound quality. I run up against this daily. Clients don't care that you have a an $8,000 camera body, or that you may be using lenses that cost more than a used car, or that your software suite was paid for with a second mortgage. They want cheap, fast, and creative.
This reminds me of a movie BD I saw a few years ago, with a director interview that was shot on a plane while the staff was traveling to/from the shooting location. The interview was shot on an iPhone 4, it was mentioned.
Raising awareness is like trying to stop a mudslide. The mudslide is the dumbing down of media through convenient online access. The "MP3-ization" of everything media-related. At the other extreme, you have the sickko audiophools with their $4000 power cords and their $30,000 speaker cables with pocelain cable lifters. There seems to be little left of the sane market. I miss the 1950s, where good audio was about striving for the best technology and not snakeoil, and it was way before the dumbing down of everything for the sake of convenience. Today, quality images are the domain of big Hollywood and a few of us intrepid techheads who care about image quality to the finest details. The customers want DVDs. And, it's ridiculous, but I saw what some of my customers are watching my DVDs on: a black plastic 17" Daewoo TV with the DVD player hooked up through the RF modulator. All I can do is roll my eyes at this stuff..
This reminds me of a movie BD I saw a few years ago, with a director interview that was shot on a plane while the staff was traveling to/from the shooting location. The interview was shot on an iPhone 4, it was mentioned.
Raising awareness is like trying to stop a mudslide. The mudslide is the dumbing down of media through convenient online access. The "MP3-ization" of everything media-related. At the other extreme, you have the sickko audiophools with their $4000 power cords and their $30,000 speaker cables with pocelain cable lifters. There seems to be little left of the sane market. I miss the 1950s, where good audio was about striving for the best technology and not snakeoil, and it was way before the dumbing down of everything for the sake of convenience. Today, quality images are the domain of big Hollywood and a few of us intrepid techheads who care about image quality to the finest details. The customers want DVDs. And, it's ridiculous, but I saw what some of my customers are watching my DVDs on: a black plastic 17" Daewoo TV with the DVD player hooked up through the RF modulator. All I can do is roll my eyes at this stuff..
Argument about using high end quipment,you have got that wrong,my input was IMO using the best top cameras should produce picture quality that does not need messing around with,maybe i am wrong,come off your high horse i never asked for help as such.
Doug i will never be 100% satisfied with cameras i have and will always by the best i can afford.
Nirv thanks for that input.
For what its worth i did purchase the best 4K tv i could afford and if the content is good it realy does look good on it.
Nirv
Carbonite Member
see also Sam's reply. There is not a high end camera that you can buy that can cope with lighting as well as the human eye.
Until cameras shooting what can accurately be described as high dynamic range and massive colour gamut as soon as you point a camera you instantly start compromising. Having the ability to setup a camera to record what the cam op considers the most important information to convey the story is still an important feature of high end cameras. Squeezing actuality into the available broadcast bandwidth is no easy task.
There are other quite reasonable requirements for having the ability to alter the image in a camera such as look development or grading. Humans have an emotional response to colour just as they do to music and you may want to create a feel in camera, not very production can afford it to be done in post production.
I have a lot of sympathy with your point of view as there is a whole pile of rubbish that now counts for broadcast TV. In some areas of broadcast TV a Lighting Cameraman is someone who owns a redhead and a Canon C100.
