Does Brand Color Science Really Matter? | Challenging Perceptions on Brand Color Science
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 сер 2021
- In this video we look at 5 different cameras from less than 5 brands and determine how important input color science from the manufacturer really is for real world rec709 results. At least 1 camera is (according to the online community) supposed to have some of the worst color science, and at least 1 camera (according to the online community) is supposed to have some of the best color science.
We do not compare all brands in this video because I cannot get access to controlled test material of ALL brands available in the same setting, but we can extrapolate from what we learn here. This sample ought to be enough to get a more broad understanding of input brand color science and how much that matters for our end results achieved. Is there special sauce? And if there is, does that really even matter for our end results?
We ask, "is good or bad Color Science more of a function of what we do with data from a camera, or is it an inherent quality from a brand's special sauce? As long as a camera gives us enough data to do what we want, does it really matter what the input color science is?"
By looking at this more empirically, we can more easily select our tools, codecs, etc. based on needs and actual measurable things (dynamic range, resolution, malleability in the grade, sharpness, noise), thus be more free in our creative expression.
Big thank you to Carlos Quintero for the test material!
Music credit: bensound.com
Links:
www.yedlin.net/
acescentral.com/
/ carlosquintero00
Consider becoming a patron!
/ tonydae
Join us on Discord!
/ discord
I'm in total agreement with you. I would be happy with any of these cameras, too. In the end, will your audiences be able to tell? Probably not. Great work, Tony.
I subbed to you a long time ago for your insight. This is gonna be one of those videos I hope. Will get back after the video is over
Very interesting. Thank you!
very good informative .Thank you
For the record:
1) I made this comparison as objective as I possibly could using as consistent transformations as possible using the Academy's color management system in Davinci Resolve. You can follow the same method I did for your own testing if this test does not suffice; in fact, I encourage you to do that.
2) I kept this video as short as I could, I talk a lot. Details on how each image was corrected will be made available in a follow up video.
3) I did not make a highly creative grade because we are looking at the color science output on its own as much as possible. This is not a codec stretch test.
4) I did not use LUTs because that would be more of a comparison of the LUT creator's ability to grade the images than a comparison of the camera color science itself and the ability to make output color science similar.
5) This is a test with rec709 output. Obviously there are other outputs we could have used (rec2020 HDR, p3) but I chose the most common output color space used today, rec709 gamma 2.4. If you want to test each different camera's ability to create HDR or P3 Cinema content, you are more than welcome to do that in your own studies. More data will definitely be needed for larger output color spaces to make similar images easier to accomplish.
6) If you can see differences relevant to you here, then maybe the brand color science matters more for you than me. That's OK too.
all cameras are good. It really doesn't matter, my preference was on 3, though this may be more down to the lens and shallow dof rather than a camera setting.
I personally did not notice much of a difference betwen shots. the exposure was nailed in all shots.
I wish there were more brands in comparison like arri, blackmagic and even some 8bit cameras 😃
Me too but that's what I was given. If you have access to a test like this with more brand please send
Чтобы увидеть разницу в цвете, увидеть как эти камеры работают, точнее отрабатывают свою «Color Science», для этого надо снимать в сценах содержащих сложный свет, когда света мало или есть недостаточная освещённость, с большими переходами от яркоосвещённых мест к затемнённым. Только Тогда мы увидим как эти камеры видят Цвет.
I can only work with what I am given. Please look at the materials I mention regarding Steve Yedlin's work on color science.
Could have Jedi mind tricked us if your talking head was shot using five different cameras and the side comment screens were pallet cleansers : ) Always learn a lot watch your videos Tony. Good stuff!
I honestly wanted to do this but I just don't have access to the cameras I wanted for that unfortunately. I need a local camera store to get involved and there are zero around here :(.
I am proud of myself for cutting the placebo effect portion of the original script I wrote for this. UA-cam ain't ready for that. If you have been there for my live streams you've seen me sneak this in before haha 😜
even on the first comparison without knowing the models, the canon c70 did it for me. I liked it by a long shot from the others, and still did after learning the models. And thats coming from someone who isnt a great fan of canon. I found the sony fx the worst. Interesting to say the least.
I found the C500 and the Sony FX6 the nicest. While the RED and the C70 my least favorite. I assume this may be down to DOF and large sensor but really I know the C70 is a great camera.
Listen to this guy, he knows his craft... his remarks helped me to make a quantum leap in image processing for me and will take your work to the next level too #tonydaeforpres
Don't know else but #4 is definitely sony)))
Seems like Monstro looked good because of oversampled sharpness?
No, the skin tones just looked better to me. I explain it in an upcoming follow up video and show why I preferred it.
Ok, so you're telling me it's not the camera?
I would argue that the camera is responsible for capturing and storing data. It's up to the artist to determine how that data ought to be used. I would argue that if you compared brands with each other that store the same data (raw or log) for the same output (rec709) the only limitation are the tools and skill of the colorist, not the color science from the cameras.
I would argue there are plenty of reasons to use certain cameras over others, but generally speaking, color science isn't one of those reasons.
@@TonyDae was trying to be funny. sorry.
yeah, in rec709 i completely agree... the only thing that matters at that point is megapixel count and OLPF, which is a subject that too few people consider when buying a camera. frankly i don't shoot a lot of video these days, but when i do i prefer fuji because it can shoot nice beefy bitrates with a baked in look that i don't have to mess around with in post -- naturally that doesn't work for most projects, but it works for me in many situations. frankly i really don't miss da vinci and mucking around like alastair mcleod with my sony files all day...
we could get into the usage of terms like 'artist' or 'cinematic' as it occurs in the parlance of the youtuber, but that's another episode of 60 minutes... 😎
@@punkrachmaninoff Sony slog2/3 files aren't that difficult to work with if you use color management. Manual grading from sgamut or sgamut3, wide gamuts without rec709 primaries, to rec709 is why most people struggle with it compared to Arri WG which has color that looks more like rec709 primaries by comparison without any work. Both can look similar with little work in post via color managed work flows. You can even run it through red ipp2 if you like to get similar results to Red. Sgamut3 is preferred to sgamut though, See white papers...
I agree that olpf is more important than some people think as well, especially with 4k and under sensors. Moire and artifacts are far worse than slightly higher perceived sharpness in video. High res photos, less of an issue. Huge problem with video though and Arri deals with those artifacts best, blackmagic the worst in my experience.