I actually had expected a matrix like green picture but a hex dump would have been even more accurate. On the other hand, everybody who knows how a hex dump looks don't need one to get the point.
The raw image actually is a monochrome image. The raw developer needs to know the order of the color array by brand designation in order to make sense of the data. That is the reason why raw files, despite being hight bit depth, can be relatively small in comparison to fully rgb debayered image formats like tiff. When I put my Sony A7rII raw files into DNG format with lossless compression and no emebedded thumbnails I get file sizes between 30 and 50 MB per file. Converting them to Tiff (some of my applications need that as an input format) gives me 256MB per image.
Was it compressed raw or uncompressed raw? I ask because it looks so complex it looks like compressed data similar to a zip file. Also, cut your hair, hippie.
*"Desperately trying to find something positive to say about a brand that we inexplicably love by expressing abstract ideas in the face of an obvious lack of technical innovation."* This line. Love it! The logical approach is refreshing. Several creators right now are trying to downplay the importance of specifications because their favorite camera company just released a camera that is weak for video.
"... that is weak for video" ... and so many people are still buying it right now just because of the great image coming out of it. Same was with the C300 back then... Some people carry about Specs, others about image quality. Matti got it just on point.
That Sir, was a blast of rapid-fire, articulate, nerdy nourishment. Spectacularly well thought out, structured and delivered. A simple 'thanks' doesn't do this justice. One of the big imaging companies should hire you right now.
How do you not have a zillion subscribers? You are smart, present logical information in an educational way. I really appreciate watching and learning from your videos.
The answer is right there in your comment: he is smart and presents logical information. Nobody cares for that on YT. (well not by the millions anyway).
The absolute best explanation of color science I have ever looked at. There is a lot of BS on YT about this, and sometimes I think that reviewers talk about this just to differentiate themselves from each other. The other comment, which you allude to is how many layers there are to the actual process of recording light with a digital system. Such things as the color rendition of the viewing device (monitor/TV/phone screen), print issues, overall system color calibration. These all affect how the "color science of the camera manufacturer" actually looks to the end user. Even the lighting in the room/situation in which the photo is being viewed affects the look of the color. What drives me nuts is how red is interpreted, for flowers, which I love to photograph. After many years of experimenting, I still cannot get the reds in my photos to come out the way I see them when I actually take the shot. Thanks for a great video, keep them coming.
awh see here, a rare video with in depth understanding/explanation, useful rationale, and avoids hyperbole. an endangered species in the polluted youtube environment.
I used a sony camera on my first wedding film and i spent so much time on color correcting the green tint, if overdone it shifts to magenta. It was ridiculous to spend more time on color than focusing on the storyline. From then on i switched to canon for all of my paid projects. I just dont have all the time to do color tweaking and i need a fast turnaround. Also, canon is great with portraits /skin tones and clients want a pleasing look, as they pay huge money to make them look great, and it doesnt necesarily mean they want the truth lol.
This is how you touch upon colour science when discussing cameras, not how all these other so called youtube “experts” just dismiss other brands based on their own limited knowledge and obvious bias towards certain brands. Keep up the great work!
One of the most thoughtful and articulated video on UA-cam explaining the color science of cameras. A mature photographer should get the colors they want with any mainstream pro-level cameras.
Never has there been a better explanation of "colour science", imho. Thanks, Gerald, your insights helped me understand what the fuss is all about - and what it indeed isn't! Your videos are stunning, in so many ways (didactics, relatableness, focus on topic, aesthetic quality, etc.), thank you for sharing your thoughts with us! You really inspire me on a regular basis to get to know the technical side of photography and videography more. Simply amazing stuff!
Wow. Seriously one of the most underrated UA-camr. You deserve atleast 500k subs. Also please don't stop making informative videos like this. Love from India ❤️
Each brand has their own tendencies. I’ve found (after editing for other photographers for many years) that Canon runs hot on red and orange when underexposed, Nikon runs hot on green and yellow when overexposed, and Sony has a heavy magenta purple hue shift on their blue tones and their colors overall tend to run cooler. These are all only an issue when exposure is not correct in camera. Excellent discussion. I really enjoy the technical expertise and intelligent explanations. Thanks!
Thank you for making this video! I've had several friends who swear by "canon color" when they talk about how they choose cameras, they don't even talk about canon lenses which are what effectively canon best at. I repeatedly told them that if you are shooting raw and do post-process then it hardly matters, but they just keep yelling the word like it's some kind of marketing buzzword. Granted, one of them has been shooting only jpegs since he got the camera a few years ago.
Thanks, Peter! I definitely agree that the first thing that comes to mind when I think of what I love about Canon is the glass. That's their specialty for sure.
Gerald Undone yess. I have a Panasonic camera but often times rent canon lenses for events because I love their lenses, mostly because it can have better dof than native Panasonic lenses as well as light gathering properties. Otherwise, post processing, I am so used to playing around with the colors and adjustments, so I find that color science isnt really something that matters much as what the camera and lens can gather for light. Hence I keep saying I'm a light worker. Hence anyone who does post processing professionally is a light worker lol
This is the third excellent video on "color science". The first was from the Northrups, the other from Sean Tucker (Skin Tones in Portraits: Canon vs Sony and How to Correct) and now yours. Sean explained, how the Canon image manipulation produces smoother skins hiding the details. Your explanation clearly explained the background of it. Peter Gregg on his video (My Canon EOS R Thoughts plus I think C-Log Looks Really Good) nicely demonstrated how Canon C-Log hides skin details making his face smoother than actually is.
Best video I've ever seen after so much time ! If only I knew this before buying a Sony a7R III to die on lightroom. But thanks for Sony to make me a better photographer. Thank you Gerald ! I love this video ! Very instructive ! Now I understand why Sony is still making 10fps.They use their better processor to make better colors instead of rushing for more images per second since 2020. Also I imagine how much processing they need to do with desamoicing since they use BSI and were the 1st to rush on many megapixels. Fuji was not fast on processing image becaused they focussed on color science processing since years. Now Fuji just make their cameras faster since they have the super magenta straight out of the camera. Same for Lumix orange and grey. Same for canon's brown. Same for Nikon's yellow. I guess since Sony A7RV, because they have made the best color, they will start to make faster burst now or higher megapixels ! I'm happy to say that after 2 years of photographing landscapes, portraits, wildlife and street photography with Sony, Fujifilm and Nikon; Sony is my favorite for the room they give for editing and it still looks so much natural even after a lot of post processing. I still want my new menu system though, new cameras are expensive...
Now that was a great, indepth video. Gerald, not only do you have a nuanced understanding of this stuff, but you also have excellent delivery! I learned lots of new details about sensor technology and what we call "colour science" (yes, it actually has a "u" in it - just ask the queen). The mic drop at the end there just made you my favourite UA-camr du jour.
Thanks a lot. Much appreciated! You know, it's funny, I always write "colour" with a U, but I chose not to for the video to favour SEO. The largest share of my audience comes from places where they spell it "color". I found it difficult to keep remembering to spell it without the U.
Who else nodded in agreement just before the AGREED title appeared on screen at 1:46? Really good video. There was a lot to take in, but it was presented in an easy to understand fashion. Keep up the great work!
For anyone worried about Sony's color science for RAW images, then get Capture One. I see a very noticeable difference in the depth of skin tones as soon as I've imported the file. Even after extensive adjustment in Lightroom to the camera calibration and HSL to match Canon images, Capture One still has an edge in skin tones looking more natural. Capture one for Sony is only $70 so there's no reason not to at least try it. Plus Capture One so express for Sony is free so you can see the difference in processing before buying the software (though you don't get access to more advanced color adjustment and layers, two things Lightroom doesn't have). Secondly, I have begun tethering because of how easy it is in Capture One and for those who haven't tried this, it's a game changer. I didn't even need to buy any new equipment because the A7III tethers through the USB-C port and my 2018 MBP's charging cable is long enough to tether with. Being able to take pictures and show people immediately not only makes you seem more professional but enhances the overall experience and removes the extra step of sending images to your client for them to pick (in some situations). Edit: I realized how much this sounds like an ad for Capture One but I really do like it that much, I'm just a happy consumer. I still use Lightroom for a lot of organization and quick edits and Photoshop for my skin editing. What it comes down to is that Adobe optimized their Adobe Standard profile to Canon when it was originally created, so while it is intended to make different camera's RAW files look relatively the same, it can't do that perfectly as Gerald said. While I know Adobe does this to some extent, what sets Capture One apart is that they create a specific standard color profile for each individual camera, rather than creating a base profile to apply to all cameras. Another factor which wasn't mentioned much was in-camera white balance accuracy vs correctness. Canon Cameras lean warmer and more natural looking to our eye, however, Sony AWB tends to find a more correct white which can look awkward in environments which even to our eye look dim and warm (a restaurant for example). This is why EOS HD color recommends Sony users set a few presets of custom white balance they can switch back and forth from to prevent the camera's AWB for screwing up the video file which is more baked than a RAW file.
I think after watching so many of your videos I've come to the conclusion as to why I can't stop: your videos are extremely educational, they're packed with enormous amount of information but you don't drag at all, the pace is just right so I can absorb the information, so the usual 10-20 minutes don't feel like a century as some other videos do. I've learned quite a bit, and frankly I've left more likes on your videos than any other youtuber's. Now I'm just really curious to see that list of cameras with most accurate color reproduction... I've always enjoyed Canon colors as it's just easy to get great, pleasing results from them. However I still bought a Sony when I became a professional. I think the point you've made about having the most accurate color to start with is exactly right. It may not be the most pleasing, but I can start from there and get the results I want, knowing that I started off with what I actually saw.
My opinion is that Canon came from photography, where light is more direct, you see clear and colours are more important. Sony came from videography, where more or less light comes from back and dynamic range is more important than colour. Therefore they are also better with low light sensitivity. It is up to photographer/videographer what does he prefer. Do you want to have large dynamic range, where everything is more "colour dull" or you want to have better colours, but smaller dynamic range. You can't have everything since those two thing don't come along. Videographer will approach to photography differently than photographer and photographer will approach to video differently than videographer. Today you have a lot of people who swims in both waters and therefore they kind of develop their own style... I guess they are the one, who cry about all this and want to have big dynamic range, good colours and good performance in low light... Great work, Gerald.
9:07 It's an old video, but the same kind of logic is repeated until now. It doesn't take much efforts to refute that simple processing would make raw files from different cameras look identical. It won't. I did many experiments with Sony and Nikon, using the same Sony lens (on adapter with Nikon) and using x-rite color test. Even after equalizing WB, brightness, contrast the pictures still don't look identical. You may find some manual color biasing would make them more similar, but change the scene, light and they will diverge again. Bottom line, get the camera which gives you pleasing pictures, don't assume you can make a different brand to do the same, you may not.
I am beginner in photography but I came across this "canon color science" and discovered that in Photolab you have options to render colors as if was processed by other camera. It is approximation. I wonder if they take in account mentioned sensor filter type. I mean unique colors depends on it.
@@cielaczek81 I used Photolab and I know that you can select profiles from many cameras, it doesn't really work, the difference is still very noticeable. What's worse, the color rendering is changing depending on the light and subject, so there is no possibility of using some profile that would fix everything. For Sony, the very narrow range of visible spectrum from green to orange is quite different from the other cameras and human vision is very sensitive to these colors.
One thing I think you're right on: calling this "color science" is a misnomer. Because in the end it isn't scientific---even though science must be used in some degree to get us to the end....an end that evolves as the eye becomes of discriminate. It took me a long time to figure out why I hated shooting the Sony A7 series cameras. I thought it was color---and, I admit part of it is tied up with my hatred of magenta and love of more orangie reds. But the other part is how shadings and shadow fall-offs are handled. Maybe it's something someone more skilled can easily correct, but something beyond color, per se, makes Sony faces look unattractive---or less attractive. I first noticed this in a comparison of Sony and Nikon. After studying these almost identical images I realized the Nikon image looked more attractive, not so much because of color, but of how shadow and color shadings and transitions were being handled. Maybe that was a one and off experience---but I can't shake the sense that Sony makes faces/skin-tones/ etc look unattractive---whatever it is it's not just color. And, of your two choices I opt for no. 2---give me the "color science" that makes it easy for me to achieve the look I want---especially for skin tones/shadow etc. Through all the subjectivity one thing is almost universally and objectively true---the creator has to be please by it before he will put it out there for anyone else to judge. In that spirit, Sony's look consistently displeases me---and I've noticed it over and over on your tube videos put out by reputedly good producers.
•“Color Theory” is a class, available at most community colleges, in the Art Dept, and should be taken or at least understood by every colorist (color grading random colors does not look good). RGB / CMY. •The software itself can extract a different look from RAW: Lightroom vs CaptureOne (or newer releases of Lightroom). •Shoot with a color chart (if possible), one that is recognized by the software you use, like DaVinci Resolve. •Yes, sometimes you need to go camera to phone to upload at a live event, for example. Also, if you buy a new camera, the RAW files are not always supported right away, so jpeg for now, and wait to process RAW. •I think Bayer Layer would be a great Halloween costume.
A few years ago I was wondering if color science really mattered. I determined it doesn’t really, for what I was doing at least. Recently I’ve been hearing a lot of hype for Fuji color science, and I asked myself the same thing. This video was a great answer. Thank you!
You have ignored the importance of the spectral response of the R,G & B pixels in the Bayer matrix. Broader (less precise) filters let in more light. More spectrally precise filters let in less light. So there is a tradeoff between the precision of the colour filters and the sensitivity of the sensor (low-light performance). Some pigments and colours (eg flowers, paints, butterfly wings etc) and light sources are a fairly narrow spectrum, so they fall in the overlap region of the R, G or B filters. If the spectral response of the RGB pixels doesn't match the spectral response of the human eye at that precise frequency, then the recorded colour will appear different than it appears to a human observer. There is no way to correct for this particular frequency of light without all affecting the recording of other mixtures of light that produce the same RGB values. The human eye actually produces a negative response to certain frequencies - and this cannot be directly replicated by silicon sensors or reproduced by RGB monitors or CMY printers. See, for example, the CIE 1931 RGB colour matching function: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space#/media/File:CIE1931_RGBCMF.svg
That's a great point, Stephen. I was reading about this exact topic earlier in the week, but I opted to skip it for the video due to its complexity and lack of solutions for the end user, but it is quite fascinating. The exact example that was being referenced was butterfly wings and it sent me down this rabbit hole of researching colour vision and the way we prioritize certain wavelengths. If I remember correctly, I read something about a possible solution to the problem on the filter level, but the pigments required are just not feasible in real-world and only work in simulation.
God, so smart! I'm constantly looking up information on camera tech, but every time I come here I always learn something new! So interesting to find out about the filtering process on camera sensors.
Praise generally has to be dragged out of me kicking and screaming, but that was an excellent analysis of colour with regard to photography. Personally, I long ago stopped caring about objective colour accuracy because I'm neither a forensic, surveillance nor an astro-photographer, I'm a dude who takes pictures, sometimes for money. I use Canon, Fuji and Panasonic digital cameras, plus plenty of film and find them all workable even in jpeg with in-camera tweaks. Out of the camera colour like so many desirable attributes, is way down the list compared to good ergonomics, intuitive menus and solid autofocus.
I definitely find the irony in the application of personal preference for often less accurate color representation is referred to as "color science(in online photography terminology)." It has always bothered me when reviewers make objective statements regarding color science or ergonomics. It strikes me as passing off personal preference as objective fact. Thank you for going deeper than that :)
Wow! Fantastic explanation! I was actually JUST thinking about what “color science” meant and why everyone seems to like canon’s color, seemingly myself included. I still didn’t understand half of what you were talking about - but it planted some seeds!
Yesterday I photographed some red roses with my Canon Eos R and in the viewfinder they looked almost orange! Nowhere near their real colour. I was shooting raw plus jpeg and when I exported the pictures, the raw looked a lot better, as in almost the same as the real thing. Luckily I didn't buy this camera for Canon's proverbial "colour science", as quite frankly the jpegs don't always look great. Having said that, perfect colour rendition is not what makes a great picture, in my case anyway. Well done on the video Gerald!! You talk facts and support your assertions with useful information. And your communication skills are incredible! Subscribed
First rant video in months I actually finished! Can't find a single thing to disagree on and this is going to be a great link to send people who want to argue the whole 'but colour science' thing when they are really talking about personal preferences.
Great video, man! You nailed it on the Sony "color science". I remember people saying it was awful when the A6000 came out, but I had the same reaction as you. It was more natural. To be fair, if the highlights get overexposed the sky becomes this UGLY teal/cyan color, but for the most part, it's accurate. Also, unrelated, I saw you mention Curtis in another comment (by happenstance) and I had the same thought the other day. Curtis is very straightforward (I think I've only seen him do one funny skit on his channel) and that's totally cool. It just made me realize that my channel is pretty much the same - with only a smattering of my dry humor. It was on my mind because I received a recent comment on one of my videos. I think I might revamp the channel in the upcoming months. But anyway, loving these videos man!
I know exactly what you mean with the a6000! And yeah, I really like Curtis. I feel like that style suits him, but I totally get you wanting to mix it up a bit. 😃
Got a Panasonic recently. LOVE the colours over my Sony and Canon. I’m sure it’s not just a lens thing, but I haven’t got an adapter to check. Edit: shooting RAW only.
You're on a hot streak with these videos Gerald. Keep it going, please. I completely agree with everything you're saying here. I can make a solid photo with every brand of camera if I'm shooting raw. But I must admit that the SOOC JPG's from my Fuji X-T10 are really quite amazing. The film simulations just look really good to me and over the years I've learned to nail the exposure and often don't need the ability to adjust exposure like I can with a raw file. This only applies to personal photos though. For a professional project I wouldn't in a million years only shoot jpg.
Gerald, this was a really great video. Very compelling & well-reasoned arguments. I’ve been guilty of throwing around the term “color science” when I really mean “what I’m most comfortable working with”. Thanks for taking the time to make this!
Gerald, thank you. I particularly enjoyed all of the color shifting during the video. The changes in your shirt and the purple item behind you were really quite striking. I learned a lot from the video.
Honestly, the amount of information flying at me made me feel like I was watching a lecture for my psychology degree... although this was far more enjoyable. Keep it up!
Yes! So much agree with this. I've been trying to explain this for quite a while, but haven't been able to do so as eloquently. "Color science" is the defacto argument for someone desperately defending a purchase after watching a comparison video which suggests their camera is sub-par. I may just post a link to your video at 12:21 for all future comments like these. Do you think that will go over well? ;) Thanks for the solid explanation. -Andrew
I've been shooting Sony + sony zeiss + GM lenses for 2 years now and still prefer my old Canon + L lenses raw files color wise. I've shot with the GFX and XT2 and prefer editing them too, especially the GFX where colors pop more with nothing done and the default adobe LR profile. I dunno what it is (camera, lens, lightroom processing,) , but Sony files just seem a little less pleasing/dull and require more work to make me satisfied. With that said, you can most definitely get pleasing and nice colors on Sony, just from my experience takes more work and a waste of time. I had to learn to make custom camera profiles which was something I never considered when I shot canon.
Like he told, if you shoot video, it's not raw and image is already processed. So for me color science in video is a big think.
6 років тому
Obviously, people who defend this color science thing don't edit their pictures.. they don't know how to use TINT and WARMTH. All Camera can achieve the same color. So DUMB and Superficial thing..
What a great video, and your comments section backs this up 👍 I watched it all the way through - which with my attention span is no mean feat, trust me 😁 Well done fella 👍
@ 4:00 Accuracy is not equal to pleasing not only is true for color in cameras but the same is true in high end audio where speaker manufacturers put in their "secret sauce" to create a more unique sound which might sound more pleasant to some people although it's less accurate.
I love how thorough your videos are and that you make it clear from the get go what to expect and the ability to skip to a particular section if needs be. Best format and presentation i've seen period on UA-cam. Two thumbs up.
You not being perfectly in the middle of the frame made my ocd go crazy but I really needed to watch this video so I beared through it and now I feel like my ocd is cured.... Gerald undone cured my ocd, who would of thought,,,,
Thank you so much for making this! I feel slightly less stupid for liking the pictures from the Fuji X-T3 I tried out over my G7. I couldn't begin to tell you why I liked the Fuji over the G7, only that when I shot the same objects at the camera store, I liked the way the Fuji looked better each time.
I put *thumb up before watching* this time. First, I know Gerald delivers the information brilliantly. Second, the theme is not very popular on YT. Can't wait to see. Starting right now.
You're great as always! Can't wait to see what's next! My suggestion: why Canon removed taking pictures in video mode and even more important - removed Continuous AF in photo mode from 80D, comparing to 70D. LOL, but that bothers me as the owner of both cameras =)
Love the breakdown on it all! As for the question you asked in the beginning, I seem to like how things turn out on my husband's camera (E-M5 mk II) somewhat more than mine (G85), but that's when he has his one and only lens (for now) on it (the Olympus14-150 f4-5.6 II) and when I'm usually shooting on my 25mm f1.7. Right then and there, there are so many variables it can't just be the camera - different person USING the camera, completely different lenses, and most importantly, he uses whatever seems to work for the mood he's aiming for with the built-in filters, while I keep forgetting I have that as an option. Eerily enough, when I'm using the G85's kit lens, I don't feel the same way about things when we both photograph something similar. As for which camera's colour science I prefer... Eh, I'd rather just have something comfortable, in my price range, and preferably isn't too heavy of a system.... Oh, and is fun to use. Like you said, if colours aren't quite how I want them, that's what various photo editing programs are for.
I’m glad to see someone who can spell colour correctly.😝 Awesome info (even though I’ve only seen the vid now). I appreciate that you get to the point quickly (getting tired of the ubiquitous long intros and small talk).🙄 Also appreciate your, correcting and/or clarifying, any previous info you feel you need to.😃 Your vids are very informative and interesting, yet you don’t take yourself too seriously. Well done and all the best!
I tried sony and nikkon over canon. There is a hint of difference, even changing colors pattern and everything in the lightroom that the canon have and the others dont (using raw too), thats why I still with canon. Its sad about the less features but for my workflow seams fast with canon :)... And the sony menu is awfull. XD
+1 for using the term pedantic +1 for throwing in Bob Ross You forced me to subscribe with your explanation on the evolution of the autofocus. Now you need a Patreon account so that I can send you some beer money.
You always pick up a common topic, and nail it with a completely different perspective. Just loved the ideology of keeping the things simple and straightforward. Keep up the good work Gerald. Love from India!!!
Best video I ever seen on Color science. Well explained. For me color science is the process of how a camera will generate x color on a photo/video. The end result I prefer has to be neutral and as true to life as possible. Gotta give it a "like".
I think you have summed it up with this statement: "pleasing is often not accurate" I almost cringe at every other shot on my IG feed being an explosion of "cinematic" teal and orange. It must be pleasing to some people? It's not camera science, it's people using cliche filters and going nuts with sliders.
"desperately trying to find something positive to say about a brand that we inexplicitly love, by expressing abstract ideas in the face of an obvious lack of technical innovation" Very well put Mr Undone. Canon has really dropped the ball over the last 5 years, they had the user engagement and the lens line-up to keep many loyal customers waiting. But it's too late for them now, the competition is simply too strong, and at the end of the day they have not delivered.
Video popped up for me in 2020. I actually came to the same conclusion back in 2018 when I picked up my A7iii. Funny thing is, I did a blind test with photos from Canon, Nikon, and Sony, and I ended up preferring Sony's 'color science' anyway. Great video, thanks!
Honestly the best I‘ve heard so far about this topic. What might be worth some consideration is the spectral response of color filter arrays compared to the human eye under different light sources. That said, I get almost 100% matches between Sony and Canon RAWs in LR when using Color Checker custom color profiles I’ve made from reference shots under similar natural lighting.
The videos you're putting out are getting better and better. Great content, very clear! Sometimes it's a bit hard to follow your speed, but dude!... I hope your channel grows faster, you deserve it.
Very true...don't confuse color science with color accuracy. Personally i always liked Canon colors right out of the camera. But i just did a couple blind tests between Canon, Sony and Nikon. Based on what i picked out of 12 images it was damn near 50/50 every time. It seemed more on lighting then anything.
Shots fired lol... But great breakdown of what a lot of people rave about. I have no qualms about wanting to stick with Canon. It's what I'm used to. My shooting partner made the switch to Sony (after I pushed him), and after finding a picture profile that gave him similar colors to what he was used to getting on Canon, he's happy (but still dealing with the awkward menu system... But getting a lot more features in a smaller package).
Damn. This is the most complete explanation of colors and staff what people wining about! Magnificent! I will definitely share this video to our local community. Although I feel there will be many disputes😁
I would love to like your Video twice or more (with this account). Thanks for the presentation. I feel I have no questions whatsoever about that topic anymore. So practical advice and insight! thanks again!
again man, love your informative no bs well articulate videos. keep teaching man! also, while mckinnon is fun and teaches good stuff, he's definitely not as articulate as you are on complex topics like this, which is really important :) i really do hope more ppl get to this channel!
I going to ignore everything you said and say: *Canon's color science look awful, as well as the Arri one.* 😂 But I like the out of the box colors of Nikon's somewhat. You can work with it better IMHO, since they are more close to what I expect my final image to look like. Also Nikon sensors tend to have somewhat greater steps than a comparable Canon. On video I think there's no way an Arri every going to work better for the money than for example an Ursa Mini. Also liking the non graded colors better, it's some kind of surreal flat and impressed me the first time I took some shots.
Fun fact! That crazy text filling the screen at 4:45 is actual image data from a Raw file I opened in Excel. 👌🤓
I actually had expected a matrix like green picture but a hex dump would have been even more accurate. On the other hand, everybody who knows how a hex dump looks don't need one to get the point.
The raw image actually is a monochrome image. The raw developer needs to know the order of the color array by brand designation in order to make sense of the data. That is the reason why raw files, despite being hight bit depth, can be relatively small in comparison to fully rgb debayered image formats like tiff. When I put my Sony A7rII raw files into DNG format with lossless compression and no emebedded thumbnails I get file sizes between 30 and 50 MB per file. Converting them to Tiff (some of my applications need that as an input format) gives me 256MB per image.
Was it compressed raw or uncompressed raw? I ask because it looks so complex it looks like compressed data similar to a zip file.
Also, cut your hair, hippie.
Troll Of Justice it was at least encoded. That is usually enough to make it look unreadable and obfuscated.
The Matrix.
*"Desperately trying to find something positive to say about a brand that we inexplicably love by expressing abstract ideas in the face of an obvious lack of technical innovation."* This line. Love it! The logical approach is refreshing. Several creators right now are trying to downplay the importance of specifications because their favorite camera company just released a camera that is weak for video.
"... that is weak for video" ... and so many people are still buying it right now just because of the great image coming out of it. Same was with the C300 back then... Some people carry about Specs, others about image quality. Matti got it just on point.
Image Quality: ua-cam.com/video/3mUGuDXOTcA/v-deo.html
That Sir, was a blast of rapid-fire, articulate, nerdy nourishment. Spectacularly well thought out, structured and delivered. A simple 'thanks' doesn't do this justice.
One of the big imaging companies should hire you right now.
Wowza! Thanks, Julian. Really appreciate that. Thanks for the ego boost! 😃💗
Finally, I found an intelligent and honest camera guy.
How do you not have a zillion subscribers? You are smart, present logical information in an educational way. I really appreciate watching and learning from your videos.
Thank you so much! That' very kind. Much appreciated. 😃💗
The answer is right there in your comment: he is smart and presents logical information. Nobody cares for that on YT. (well not by the millions anyway).
He will it takes time
Ppl rather watch dogs chasing squirrels on tik tok i guess, idk.. lol smh
@@nordfresse right.. although this kinda stuff is so interesting to us.. most ppl don't want to learn,, they want junk food entertainment
The absolute best explanation of color science I have ever looked at. There is a lot of BS on YT about this, and sometimes I think that reviewers talk about this just to differentiate themselves from each other. The other comment, which you allude to is how many layers there are to the actual process of recording light with a digital system. Such things as the color rendition of the viewing device (monitor/TV/phone screen), print issues, overall system color calibration. These all affect how the "color science of the camera manufacturer" actually looks to the end user. Even the lighting in the room/situation in which the photo is being viewed affects the look of the color. What drives me nuts is how red is interpreted, for flowers, which I love to photograph. After many years of experimenting, I still cannot get the reds in my photos to come out the way I see them when I actually take the shot. Thanks for a great video, keep them coming.
Thanks, Steven. I'm glad you liked the video and I appreciate the comment. You made some great points.
awh see here, a rare video with in depth understanding/explanation, useful rationale, and avoids hyperbole. an endangered species in the polluted youtube environment.
Am I supposed to be reading this with an Australian accent? Because I am, and it's glorious. 😜👍
I used a sony camera on my first wedding film and i spent so much time on color correcting the green tint, if overdone it shifts to magenta. It was ridiculous to spend more time on color than focusing on the storyline. From then on i switched to canon for all of my paid projects. I just dont have all the time to do color tweaking and i need a fast turnaround. Also, canon is great with portraits /skin tones and clients want a pleasing look, as they pay huge money to make them look great, and it doesnt necesarily mean they want the truth lol.
Are you sure you're a photographer?
@@harryvuemedia5106 Are you sure you’re a photographer?
@@reallymentalpig1173 Are you sure you're a photographer?
Yeah this guy doesn't sound like pro. It's probably a fanboy 😂
Then create your own profile. It takes 10 seconds
Haha didn't expect all of that information coming at me so quickly. It was like a freight train of information crashing into my brain. Great video!
Agree. I understood the words, but not the sentences..
This is how you touch upon colour science when discussing cameras, not how all these other so called youtube “experts” just dismiss other brands based on their own limited knowledge and obvious bias towards certain brands.
Keep up the great work!
One of the most thoughtful and articulated video on UA-cam explaining the color science of cameras. A mature photographer should get the colors they want with any mainstream pro-level cameras.
Never has there been a better explanation of "colour science", imho. Thanks, Gerald, your insights helped me understand what the fuss is all about - and what it indeed isn't! Your videos are stunning, in so many ways (didactics, relatableness, focus on topic, aesthetic quality, etc.), thank you for sharing your thoughts with us! You really inspire me on a regular basis to get to know the technical side of photography and videography more. Simply amazing stuff!
Thanks for this. Really made me feel good, and I'm glad to hear that you're getting a lot from these videos. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers! 👍💗😃
Where has this channel been all my life! The detail explanations of your videos is exactly what I like. Keep up the great work!
Wow. Seriously one of the most underrated UA-camr. You deserve atleast 500k subs. Also please don't stop making informative videos like this. Love from India ❤️
underrated? He is one the most technically respected guys on consumer video
Each brand has their own tendencies. I’ve found (after editing for other photographers for many years) that Canon runs hot on red and orange when underexposed, Nikon runs hot on green and yellow when overexposed, and Sony has a heavy magenta purple hue shift on their blue tones and their colors overall tend to run cooler. These are all only an issue when exposure is not correct in camera. Excellent discussion. I really enjoy the technical expertise and intelligent explanations. Thanks!
Thank you for making this video! I've had several friends who swear by "canon color" when they talk about how they choose cameras, they don't even talk about canon lenses which are what effectively canon best at. I repeatedly told them that if you are shooting raw and do post-process then it hardly matters, but they just keep yelling the word like it's some kind of marketing buzzword. Granted, one of them has been shooting only jpegs since he got the camera a few years ago.
Thanks, Peter! I definitely agree that the first thing that comes to mind when I think of what I love about Canon is the glass. That's their specialty for sure.
Gerald Undone yess. I have a Panasonic camera but often times rent canon lenses for events because I love their lenses, mostly because it can have better dof than native Panasonic lenses as well as light gathering properties. Otherwise, post processing, I am so used to playing around with the colors and adjustments, so I find that color science isnt really something that matters much as what the camera and lens can gather for light. Hence I keep saying I'm a light worker. Hence anyone who does post processing professionally is a light worker lol
This is the third excellent video on "color science". The first was from the Northrups, the other from Sean Tucker (Skin Tones in Portraits: Canon vs Sony and How to Correct) and now yours. Sean explained, how the Canon image manipulation produces smoother skins hiding the details. Your explanation clearly explained the background of it. Peter Gregg on his video (My Canon EOS R Thoughts plus I think C-Log Looks Really Good) nicely demonstrated how Canon C-Log hides skin details making his face smoother than actually is.
Best video I've ever seen after so much time ! If only I knew this before buying a Sony a7R III to die on lightroom. But thanks for Sony to make me a better photographer.
Thank you Gerald ! I love this video ! Very instructive !
Now I understand why Sony is still making 10fps.They use their better processor to make better colors instead of rushing for more images per second since 2020. Also I imagine how much processing they need to do with desamoicing since they use BSI and were the 1st to rush on many megapixels. Fuji was not fast on processing image becaused they focussed on color science processing since years. Now Fuji just make their cameras faster since they have the super magenta straight out of the camera. Same for Lumix orange and grey. Same for canon's brown. Same for Nikon's yellow.
I guess since Sony A7RV, because they have made the best color, they will start to make faster burst now or higher megapixels !
I'm happy to say that after 2 years of photographing landscapes, portraits, wildlife and street photography with Sony, Fujifilm and Nikon; Sony is my favorite for the room they give for editing and it still looks so much natural even after a lot of post processing.
I still want my new menu system though, new cameras are expensive...
Now that was a great, indepth video. Gerald, not only do you have a nuanced understanding of this stuff, but you also have excellent delivery! I learned lots of new details about sensor technology and what we call "colour science" (yes, it actually has a "u" in it - just ask the queen). The mic drop at the end there just made you my favourite UA-camr du jour.
Thanks a lot. Much appreciated!
You know, it's funny, I always write "colour" with a U, but I chose not to for the video to favour SEO. The largest share of my audience comes from places where they spell it "color". I found it difficult to keep remembering to spell it without the U.
Good shit.
Who else nodded in agreement just before the AGREED title appeared on screen at 1:46? Really good video. There was a lot to take in, but it was presented in an easy to understand fashion. Keep up the great work!
Haha. Thanks so much! 😃🙏
For anyone worried about Sony's color science for RAW images, then get Capture One. I see a very noticeable difference in the depth of skin tones as soon as I've imported the file. Even after extensive adjustment in Lightroom to the camera calibration and HSL to match Canon images, Capture One still has an edge in skin tones looking more natural. Capture one for Sony is only $70 so there's no reason not to at least try it. Plus Capture One so express for Sony is free so you can see the difference in processing before buying the software (though you don't get access to more advanced color adjustment and layers, two things Lightroom doesn't have).
Secondly, I have begun tethering because of how easy it is in Capture One and for those who haven't tried this, it's a game changer. I didn't even need to buy any new equipment because the A7III tethers through the USB-C port and my 2018 MBP's charging cable is long enough to tether with. Being able to take pictures and show people immediately not only makes you seem more professional but enhances the overall experience and removes the extra step of sending images to your client for them to pick (in some situations).
Edit: I realized how much this sounds like an ad for Capture One but I really do like it that much, I'm just a happy consumer. I still use Lightroom for a lot of organization and quick edits and Photoshop for my skin editing. What it comes down to is that Adobe optimized their Adobe Standard profile to Canon when it was originally created, so while it is intended to make different camera's RAW files look relatively the same, it can't do that perfectly as Gerald said. While I know Adobe does this to some extent, what sets Capture One apart is that they create a specific standard color profile for each individual camera, rather than creating a base profile to apply to all cameras. Another factor which wasn't mentioned much was in-camera white balance accuracy vs correctness. Canon Cameras lean warmer and more natural looking to our eye, however, Sony AWB tends to find a more correct white which can look awkward in environments which even to our eye look dim and warm (a restaurant for example). This is why EOS HD color recommends Sony users set a few presets of custom white balance they can switch back and forth from to prevent the camera's AWB for screwing up the video file which is more baked than a RAW file.
Canon cameras allow you to program 'film simulations', or scripts for interpreting raw images into jpegs. You can load those into the camera body
I think after watching so many of your videos I've come to the conclusion as to why I can't stop: your videos are extremely educational, they're packed with enormous amount of information but you don't drag at all, the pace is just right so I can absorb the information, so the usual 10-20 minutes don't feel like a century as some other videos do. I've learned quite a bit, and frankly I've left more likes on your videos than any other youtuber's. Now I'm just really curious to see that list of cameras with most accurate color reproduction... I've always enjoyed Canon colors as it's just easy to get great, pleasing results from them. However I still bought a Sony when I became a professional. I think the point you've made about having the most accurate color to start with is exactly right. It may not be the most pleasing, but I can start from there and get the results I want, knowing that I started off with what I actually saw.
My opinion is that Canon came from photography, where light is more direct, you see clear and colours are more important. Sony came from videography, where more or less light comes from back and dynamic range is more important than colour. Therefore they are also better with low light sensitivity. It is up to photographer/videographer what does he prefer. Do you want to have large dynamic range, where everything is more "colour dull" or you want to have better colours, but smaller dynamic range. You can't have everything since those two thing don't come along.
Videographer will approach to photography differently than photographer and photographer will approach to video differently than videographer. Today you have a lot of people who swims in both waters and therefore they kind of develop their own style... I guess they are the one, who cry about all this and want to have big dynamic range, good colours and good performance in low light...
Great work, Gerald.
9:07 It's an old video, but the same kind of logic is repeated until now. It doesn't take much efforts to refute that simple processing would make raw files from different cameras look identical. It won't. I did many experiments with Sony and Nikon, using the same Sony lens (on adapter with Nikon) and using x-rite color test. Even after equalizing WB, brightness, contrast the pictures still don't look identical. You may find some manual color biasing would make them more similar, but change the scene, light and they will diverge again. Bottom line, get the camera which gives you pleasing pictures, don't assume you can make a different brand to do the same, you may not.
I am beginner in photography but I came across this "canon color science" and discovered that in Photolab you have options to render colors as if was processed by other camera. It is approximation. I wonder if they take in account mentioned sensor filter type. I mean unique colors depends on it.
@@cielaczek81 I used Photolab and I know that you can select profiles from many cameras, it doesn't really work, the difference is still very noticeable. What's worse, the color rendering is changing depending on the light and subject, so there is no possibility of using some profile that would fix everything. For Sony, the very narrow range of visible spectrum from green to orange is quite different from the other cameras and human vision is very sensitive to these colors.
One thing I think you're right on: calling this "color science" is a misnomer. Because in the end it isn't scientific---even though science must be used in some degree to get us to the end....an end that evolves as the eye becomes of discriminate.
It took me a long time to figure out why I hated shooting the Sony A7 series cameras. I thought it was color---and, I admit part of it is tied up with my hatred of magenta and love of more orangie reds. But the other part is how shadings and shadow fall-offs are handled.
Maybe it's something someone more skilled can easily correct, but something beyond color, per se, makes Sony faces look unattractive---or less attractive. I first noticed this in a comparison of Sony and Nikon. After studying these almost identical images I realized the Nikon image looked more attractive, not so much because of color, but of how shadow and color shadings and transitions were being handled.
Maybe that was a one and off experience---but I can't shake the sense that Sony makes faces/skin-tones/ etc look unattractive---whatever it is it's not just color.
And, of your two choices I opt for no. 2---give me the "color science" that makes it easy for me to achieve the look I want---especially for skin tones/shadow etc.
Through all the subjectivity one thing is almost universally and objectively true---the creator has to be please by it before he will put it out there for anyone else to judge. In that spirit, Sony's look consistently displeases me---and I've noticed it over and over on your tube videos put out by reputedly good producers.
•“Color Theory” is a class, available at most community colleges, in the Art Dept, and should be taken or at least understood by every colorist (color grading random colors does not look good). RGB / CMY.
•The software itself can extract a different look from RAW: Lightroom vs CaptureOne (or newer releases of Lightroom).
•Shoot with a color chart (if possible), one that is recognized by the software you use, like DaVinci Resolve.
•Yes, sometimes you need to go camera to phone to upload at a live event, for example. Also, if you buy a new camera, the RAW files are not always supported right away, so jpeg for now, and wait to process RAW.
•I think Bayer Layer would be a great Halloween costume.
As usual, good comment and good points!
That Halloween costume cracked me up. I wonder what people would guess you were dressed as? Tetris?
Gerald Undone Square Twister? 😁
A few years ago I was wondering if color science really mattered. I determined it doesn’t really, for what I was doing at least. Recently I’ve been hearing a lot of hype for Fuji color science, and I asked myself the same thing. This video was a great answer. Thank you!
You have ignored the importance of the spectral response of the R,G & B pixels in the Bayer matrix. Broader (less precise) filters let in more light. More spectrally precise filters let in less light. So there is a tradeoff between the precision of the colour filters and the sensitivity of the sensor (low-light performance). Some pigments and colours (eg flowers, paints, butterfly wings etc) and light sources are a fairly narrow spectrum, so they fall in the overlap region of the R, G or B filters. If the spectral response of the RGB pixels doesn't match the spectral response of the human eye at that precise frequency, then the recorded colour will appear different than it appears to a human observer. There is no way to correct for this particular frequency of light without all affecting the recording of other mixtures of light that produce the same RGB values. The human eye actually produces a negative response to certain frequencies - and this cannot be directly replicated by silicon sensors or reproduced by RGB monitors or CMY printers. See, for example, the CIE 1931 RGB colour matching function: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space#/media/File:CIE1931_RGBCMF.svg
That's a great point, Stephen. I was reading about this exact topic earlier in the week, but I opted to skip it for the video due to its complexity and lack of solutions for the end user, but it is quite fascinating. The exact example that was being referenced was butterfly wings and it sent me down this rabbit hole of researching colour vision and the way we prioritize certain wavelengths. If I remember correctly, I read something about a possible solution to the problem on the filter level, but the pigments required are just not feasible in real-world and only work in simulation.
God, so smart! I'm constantly looking up information on camera tech, but every time I come here I always learn something new! So interesting to find out about the filtering process on camera sensors.
Praise generally has to be dragged out of me kicking and screaming, but that was an excellent analysis of colour with regard to photography. Personally, I long ago stopped caring about objective colour accuracy because I'm neither a forensic, surveillance nor an astro-photographer, I'm a dude who takes pictures, sometimes for money. I use Canon, Fuji and Panasonic digital cameras, plus plenty of film and find them all workable even in jpeg with in-camera tweaks. Out of the camera colour like so many desirable attributes, is way down the list compared to good ergonomics, intuitive menus and solid autofocus.
Strongly agree with this comment. And thanks for the kind words. 😃👍
I definitely find the irony in the application of personal preference for often less accurate color representation is referred to as "color science(in online photography terminology)." It has always bothered me when reviewers make objective statements regarding color science or ergonomics. It strikes me as passing off personal preference as objective fact. Thank you for going deeper than that :)
I totally agree. That's a good point about ergonomics too. It's so true that what I might find comfortable isn't objectively better. Cheers! 😃👍
Wow! Fantastic explanation! I was actually JUST thinking about what “color science” meant and why everyone seems to like canon’s color, seemingly myself included. I still didn’t understand half of what you were talking about - but it planted some seeds!
Yesterday I photographed some red roses with my Canon Eos R and in the viewfinder they looked almost orange! Nowhere near their real colour. I was shooting raw plus jpeg and when I exported the pictures, the raw looked a lot better, as in almost the same as the real thing. Luckily I didn't buy this camera for Canon's proverbial "colour science", as quite frankly the jpegs don't always look great.
Having said that, perfect colour rendition is not what makes a great picture, in my case anyway.
Well done on the video Gerald!! You talk facts and support your assertions with useful information. And your communication skills are incredible! Subscribed
If you want accurate, try Neautral
I love your videos. It's purely about facts rather than personal opinions. No one else creates content as high quality as yours
The quality of these videos is unusually high. Such clear and concise explanations. Thanks!
First rant video in months I actually finished! Can't find a single thing to disagree on and this is going to be a great link to send people who want to argue the whole 'but colour science' thing when they are really talking about personal preferences.
Great video, man! You nailed it on the Sony "color science". I remember people saying it was awful when the A6000 came out, but I had the same reaction as you. It was more natural. To be fair, if the highlights get overexposed the sky becomes this UGLY teal/cyan color, but for the most part, it's accurate.
Also, unrelated, I saw you mention Curtis in another comment (by happenstance) and I had the same thought the other day. Curtis is very straightforward (I think I've only seen him do one funny skit on his channel) and that's totally cool. It just made me realize that my channel is pretty much the same - with only a smattering of my dry humor. It was on my mind because I received a recent comment on one of my videos. I think I might revamp the channel in the upcoming months.
But anyway, loving these videos man!
I know exactly what you mean with the a6000!
And yeah, I really like Curtis. I feel like that style suits him, but I totally get you wanting to mix it up a bit. 😃
the KING of breakdown explanations
Got a Panasonic recently. LOVE the colours over my Sony and Canon. I’m sure it’s not just a lens thing, but I haven’t got an adapter to check.
Edit: shooting RAW only.
13 minutes? Felt like 2. I’m a huge photography nerd, yet I always come up knowing something I didn’t before every time I watch your videos.
Good goodness that was a lot of information.
Thank you!
You're on a hot streak with these videos Gerald. Keep it going, please.
I completely agree with everything you're saying here. I can make a solid photo with every brand of camera if I'm shooting raw. But I must admit that the SOOC JPG's from my Fuji X-T10 are really quite amazing.
The film simulations just look really good to me and over the years I've learned to nail the exposure and often don't need the ability to adjust exposure like I can with a raw file.
This only applies to personal photos though. For a professional project I wouldn't in a million years only shoot jpg.
Thanks, Emil. I'm with you on the SooC Fuji. I really like those jpegs as well.
Thanks for the comment. Cheers! 😃👍
This was awesome! Thanks for sharing such a well thought out view on color science!
Man you're fast, no time wasted. I like both your content and style. Thumbs up!
Great video! People often believe there is some magical stuff happening in their camera while there is only plain physics. 👍
Gerald, this was a really great video. Very compelling & well-reasoned arguments. I’ve been guilty of throwing around the term “color science” when I really mean “what I’m most comfortable working with”. Thanks for taking the time to make this!
Can’t believe how amazing his content is, even the stuff that’s from last year.
Thank you very much! 😃🙏
Dude you are the Rainman of color science and cameras. My head just exploded 🤯 lol. Love the videos as always. Congrats on 100k
12:30 - best shots fired at Peter McKinnon EVER 👏👏👏😂😂
Spectacular channel Gerald! Perfect videos.
Oh, boy! This one was perfect! Best video I've seen on YT! Ever!
Wooosh - that was a huge amount of info in a short amount of time!
You like? 😜
Gerald, thank you. I particularly enjoyed all of the color shifting during the video. The changes in your shirt and the purple item behind you were really quite striking. I learned a lot from the video.
Honestly, the amount of information flying at me made me feel like I was watching a lecture for my psychology degree... although this was far more enjoyable. Keep it up!
Thanks, Adrian!
Way underrated channel man. Great stuff!
Yes! So much agree with this. I've been trying to explain this for quite a while, but haven't been able to do so as eloquently. "Color science" is the defacto argument for someone desperately defending a purchase after watching a comparison video which suggests their camera is sub-par. I may just post a link to your video at 12:21 for all future comments like these. Do you think that will go over well? ;) Thanks for the solid explanation. -Andrew
Haha. Thanks for the kind words! I'm not sure how well that would go over. 😜
I've been shooting Sony + sony zeiss + GM lenses for 2 years now and still prefer my old Canon + L lenses raw files color wise. I've shot with the GFX and XT2 and prefer editing them too, especially the GFX where colors pop more with nothing done and the default adobe LR profile. I dunno what it is (camera, lens, lightroom processing,) , but Sony files just seem a little less pleasing/dull and require more work to make me satisfied. With that said, you can most definitely get pleasing and nice colors on Sony, just from my experience takes more work and a waste of time. I had to learn to make custom camera profiles which was something I never considered when I shot canon.
Like he told, if you shoot video, it's not raw and image is already processed. So for me color science in video is a big think.
Obviously, people who defend this color science thing don't edit their pictures.. they don't know how to use TINT and WARMTH. All Camera can achieve the same color. So DUMB and Superficial thing..
It's not always raw, especially in video...
What a great video, and your comments section backs this up 👍
I watched it all the way through - which with my attention span is no mean feat, trust me 😁
Well done fella 👍
Thanks a lot, Dave! And thanks for the share on Twitter. Much appreciated. 😃🙏
@@geraldundone You're welcome, anytime fella 👍
@ 4:00 Accuracy is not equal to pleasing not only is true for color in cameras but the same is true in high end audio where speaker manufacturers put in their "secret sauce" to create a more unique sound which might sound more pleasant to some people although it's less accurate.
I love how thorough your videos are and that you make it clear from the get go what to expect and the ability to skip to a particular section if needs be. Best format and presentation i've seen period on UA-cam. Two thumbs up.
Thanks so much, Mark! That means a lot. Cheers!
This was a GU masterpiece. Pretty much elaborated exactly and eloquently my thoughts better than I ever could have.
You not being perfectly in the middle of the frame made my ocd go crazy but I really needed to watch this video so I beared through it and now I feel like my ocd is cured.... Gerald undone cured my ocd, who would of thought,,,,
Nobody on youtube do photography related technical explanations quite as well as you do Gerald!
Thanks, Mikkel. That means a lot. Cheers! 😃👍
Another great video, Gerald!
Yes!
Your videos are getting better and better. I do not regret subscribing!
I love the speed and pacing of this type of quality content.
You’ve earned a fan!
Thank you so much. I'm glad to hear it. 😃
Thank you so much for making this! I feel slightly less stupid for liking the pictures from the Fuji X-T3 I tried out over my G7. I couldn't begin to tell you why I liked the Fuji over the G7, only that when I shot the same objects at the camera store, I liked the way the Fuji looked better each time.
Understandable! That's all that really matters in the end. I also really like the pictures straight outta the X-T3.
I put *thumb up before watching* this time. First, I know Gerald delivers the information brilliantly. Second, the theme is not very popular on YT. Can't wait to see. Starting right now.
Well, what's the verdict? 😜
You're great as always! Can't wait to see what's next!
My suggestion: why Canon removed taking pictures in video mode and even more important - removed Continuous AF in photo mode from 80D, comparing to 70D.
LOL, but that bothers me as the owner of both cameras =)
I just ran across your videos. What a pleasure to watch, and how informative! What a difference to all those nerds and snobs babbling along.
Finally! I have been waiting for a video on this for quite some time! Thank you, and great job on your explanation!
“Bryce E. Bayer (/ˈbaɪər/; pronounced BYE-er”
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryce_Bayer
Excellent presentation. Such good information formatted and presented in a easy-to-understand way. Well done, you've earned my sub.
Accurate, in -depth, and actually useful. I'm gonna have to point a lot of people towards this video!
Love the breakdown on it all! As for the question you asked in the beginning, I seem to like how things turn out on my husband's camera (E-M5 mk II) somewhat more than mine (G85), but that's when he has his one and only lens (for now) on it (the Olympus14-150 f4-5.6 II) and when I'm usually shooting on my 25mm f1.7. Right then and there, there are so many variables it can't just be the camera - different person USING the camera, completely different lenses, and most importantly, he uses whatever seems to work for the mood he's aiming for with the built-in filters, while I keep forgetting I have that as an option. Eerily enough, when I'm using the G85's kit lens, I don't feel the same way about things when we both photograph something similar.
As for which camera's colour science I prefer... Eh, I'd rather just have something comfortable, in my price range, and preferably isn't too heavy of a system.... Oh, and is fun to use. Like you said, if colours aren't quite how I want them, that's what various photo editing programs are for.
Interesting. Thanks for sharing the details. Always appreciate your comments. 😃👍
Great video man! How do you know all this stuff? Did you go to school for this or do you work at a camera company? Love your content! 😁
I’m glad to see someone who can spell colour correctly.😝 Awesome info (even though I’ve only seen the vid now). I appreciate that you get to the point quickly (getting tired of the ubiquitous long intros and small talk).🙄 Also appreciate your, correcting and/or clarifying, any previous info you feel you need to.😃 Your vids are very informative and interesting, yet you don’t take yourself too seriously. Well done and all the best!
I tried sony and nikkon over canon. There is a hint of difference, even changing colors pattern and everything in the lightroom that the canon have and the others dont (using raw too), thats why I still with canon. Its sad about the less features but for my workflow seams fast with canon :)... And the sony menu is awfull. XD
+1 for using the term pedantic
+1 for throwing in Bob Ross
You forced me to subscribe with your explanation on the evolution of the autofocus.
Now you need a Patreon account so that I can send you some beer money.
I'm glad I found the secret to your heart! *It's a complex formula involving Bob Ross, but it just might work.* 😜
I finally caved and set one up: www.patreon.com/GeraldUndone
You always pick up a common topic, and nail it with a completely different perspective. Just loved the ideology of keeping the things simple and straightforward. Keep up the good work Gerald. Love from India!!!
Your videos are always so informative. Thank you for this!
Best video I ever seen on Color science. Well explained. For me color science is the process of how a camera will generate x color on a photo/video. The end result I prefer has to be neutral and as true to life as possible. Gotta give it a "like".
I think you have summed it up with this statement: "pleasing is often not accurate" I almost cringe at every other shot on my IG feed being an explosion of "cinematic" teal and orange. It must be pleasing to some people? It's not camera science, it's people using cliche filters and going nuts with sliders.
"desperately trying to find something positive to say about a brand that we inexplicitly love, by expressing abstract ideas in the face of an obvious lack of technical innovation"
Very well put Mr Undone.
Canon has really dropped the ball over the last 5 years, they had the user engagement and the lens line-up to keep many loyal customers waiting. But it's too late for them now, the competition is simply too strong, and at the end of the day they have not delivered.
just starting photography and this is the kind of information im looking for. Not just "shooting raw for lightroom"
Video popped up for me in 2020. I actually came to the same conclusion back in 2018 when I picked up my A7iii. Funny thing is, I did a blind test with photos from Canon, Nikon, and Sony, and I ended up preferring Sony's 'color science' anyway. Great video, thanks!
Nicely summarised. Thanks mate
OMG! Keep that up and I might learn something. That was excellent!
Honestly the best I‘ve heard so far about this topic.
What might be worth some consideration is the spectral response of color filter arrays compared to the human eye under different light sources. That said, I get almost 100% matches between Sony and Canon RAWs in LR when using Color Checker custom color profiles I’ve made from reference shots under similar natural lighting.
Great video, thank you for sharing those informations! 👍🏻
Thank you! My pleasure. 😃🙏
The videos you're putting out are getting better and better. Great content, very clear! Sometimes it's a bit hard to follow your speed, but dude!... I hope your channel grows faster, you deserve it.
Thanks, mate! Much appreciated. 😃👍
Very true...don't confuse color science with color accuracy. Personally i always liked Canon colors right out of the camera. But i just did a couple blind tests between Canon, Sony and Nikon. Based on what i picked out of 12 images it was damn near 50/50 every time. It seemed more on lighting then anything.
Shots fired lol...
But great breakdown of what a lot of people rave about. I have no qualms about wanting to stick with Canon. It's what I'm used to. My shooting partner made the switch to Sony (after I pushed him), and after finding a picture profile that gave him similar colors to what he was used to getting on Canon, he's happy (but still dealing with the awkward menu system... But getting a lot more features in a smaller package).
I'm curious what picture style he went with?
And yeah, as much as I love my a7 III, I'd still take Canon menus any day of the week. 😃
Damn. This is the most complete explanation of colors and staff what people wining about! Magnificent! I will definitely share this video to our local community. Although I feel there will be many disputes😁
I would love to like your Video twice or more (with this account). Thanks for the presentation. I feel I have no questions whatsoever about that topic anymore. So practical advice and insight! thanks again!
This single video won me over. You know your stuff. Subbed!
Love the explanation, from the Bayer filters to the data interpolation. Thanks!
WOW!… I actually understood everything you said!… Now I'm scared!… Well done Mr Undone.
again man, love your informative no bs well articulate videos. keep teaching man!
also, while mckinnon is fun and teaches good stuff, he's definitely not as articulate as you are on complex topics like this, which is really important :) i really do hope more ppl get to this channel!
I going to ignore everything you said and say:
*Canon's color science look awful, as well as the Arri one.* 😂
But I like the out of the box colors of Nikon's somewhat. You can work with it better IMHO, since they are more close to what I expect my final image to look like. Also Nikon sensors tend to have somewhat greater steps than a comparable Canon.
On video I think there's no way an Arri every going to work better for the money than for example an Ursa Mini. Also liking the non graded colors better, it's some kind of surreal flat and impressed me the first time I took some shots.
The best method for color science in all camera's is RAWWWWW
Love your channel. Do you actually take a breath sometimes? Do you remember all the great things you teach us? Unbelievable.
Thanks, Andrea! 😃🙏