Seeing the world differently

[Steve Sherrick]

With Ursa Mini finally shipping, as well as Raven/Scarlet Ws on the way we are seeing lots of interesting debate when it comes to the image quality of the various camera systems available today. There have been very strong opinions/analysis about which camera captures the "better" image, which color science is more pleasing, which camera provides the best skin tones. At times, it can be rather nauseating, and of course the ultimate answer is whatever tool is right for the job. However, when I take a step back and look at what is going on here, I realize that perhaps at the heart of all of this is that we all see the world differently, our eyes are not perfect mechanisms that have no variance. They are to a certain extent, unique, and perhaps no two human beings see the world exactly the same.

Recently I was in a dailies session with a DP and as we both observed the images he seemed to have a bias toward magenta and I seem to have a bias toward green. Two people, staring at the same image with two different interpretations of what they were seeing. Now, there's a wealth of scientific data out there about why that is, but I'll leave that for everyone to look into on their own time as it's a tremendous amount of research to go through. The important takeaway for me is that although two people may look at an image and agree on whether it has a green cast or magenta cast or too red in the shadows, or badly transitions into highlights, etc. there are just as many people who may see it a different way, either slightly different or even dramatically different.

And it's no wonder that some people think RED's color science looks good while others don't. Why some like Sony's color science and others don't. How else to explain it? I don't think it's simply fanboyism. I don't think it's just the name on the side of a camera. What makes a filmmaker like David Fincher choose a RED over an Alexa? What makes Roger Deakins prefer Alexa over anything else? What makes Christopher Probst choose RED over Alexa, even though he could probably shoot on any camera he wants to? What makes someone like the skin tones on a Blackmagic even if the skin tones may not match what the eye sees in person? There's something about the image that leads to that choice.

Are some people's eyes trained better than others? Does getting a perfect score on an Xrite color test mean your eyesight is superior to others who scored less on that test? These are fascinating questions. What if I told you of a well known DP who is color blind. It's a deep topic that shows up in interesting ways on these forums.

Anyway, I think in these times of dissecting image quality right down to the single pixel level that it's important to step back and acknowledge that we all see the world a bit differently and that cameras are not solely chosen because of a name (although that certainly does happen for sure) on the side of the camera body. I have great respect for a lot of DPs working today and they don't all choose the same camera. And I also find it fascinating seeing the same scene graded by multiple colorists and how they usually arrive at different places with the grade, again sometimes subtle, sometimes not.

 

[Ryan Hamblin]

agreed!

 

[Christian Haake]

Thank you for your wise words Steve.
I live in peace now....

 

[Michael Tiemann]

Well said! The Exploratorium in San Francisco had an excellent exhibit on color that allowed two visitors to compare and contrast their perceptions of color. While I do believe that in large strokes we all see the same red, green, and blue, it's not very far into the details before perceptions diverge. The trick of the colorist is to see colors as God does, so that whatever other people may see in the image, they at least recognize it as coming from nature.

 

[Mark M]

Agreed. And even noticed slight color shifts between each of my eyes, especially when looking at specific colors (like red) with one shut and consciously comparing the two. It wouldn't surprise me if every eye perceives color/light differently and combining a pair to perceive the entire image brings that much more variation to our perception. Also individually and collectively we go through different phases where our color preferences shift. For instance bringing out greens in the darks seems to have become a more popular style in the last couple years, whereas an older DP I sometimes work with often pushes for a warm red/brown dominance that was popular several years ago (which I find a bit amusing and frustrating

Interesting topic for sure!

 

[M.Halsell]

Steve your pearls of wisdom are always well received. I wanted to footnote with some of my observations. First and foremost, most attendees of the forum are in the production craft. And this site has proved by in large a valuable cross section of technical practitioners. That are able to lend a very practical and pragmatic balance to what has to happen in the real world. Some have a higher vantage point, which trickles down to those with less. Those with less often discover sensible solutions, that trickle upward.

The real world within our space is the client. The paying client. Thus, despite the varied approaches, choice of tools and technical problem solving. Generally the work is packaged and delivered in a manner suitable to what the client will pay. And generally that client is ball and chained to a corporate interest which fundamentally understands brand survival in the marketplace.

So, on our own, our paths and decisions would be even more or less wieldy or diluted. But the because of the anticipation of payment, the client is the barometer or compass that leads our actions. Thus production results generally arrives at the same commercially definable space.

That being said, often the tools get scruitinized mercilessly. People are fiercely vocal about what some may see as accepted protocol, the trial by fire method that shouldn't be tampered with.

Now there is the tertiary crowd that may include post people, and creatives. So the discussions and vernaculars sometimes furthers the fire triangle.

Our recent camera discussions actually exposed my own thinking on the matter. Initially, I was frankly uncomfortable that the camera under discussion was even that close in image ability. Then, I found myself being slightly put off by the 'digging/scraping at the bottom of the empty jar' for that last bit of resolution separation between cameras. As most commercial productions don't operate at extreme ends of the exposure scale anyways.

At the core of human behavior is choice. Choice spawns possibilities. Choice is power. There is fundamental human value in choice. We all want choice, just cant be mad when its given to us.

 

[Saied_M]

I'm just speculating that people see the same image, but differ in opinion because what they consider to be the right colour or texture may be based on subconscious perceptions made during personal formative years, from TV programmes watched to special events in life. A bit like preferring a film image to digital, but an army of perfectly sane intelligent people now preferring digital to film, to the extent that I now sometimes look at an image and think "Where did all that grain come from ?"

 

[M.Halsell]

I'm just speculating that people see the same image, but differ in opinion because what they consider to be the right colour or texture may be based on subconscious perceptions made during personal formative years, from TV programmes watched to special events in life. A bit like preferring a film image to digital, but an army of perfectly sane intelligent people now preferring digital to film, to the extent that I now sometimes look at an image and think "Where did all that grain come from ?"

Agreed, technology is out of the bag. The capture and display technologies will be quite advanced for the next generation. HDR will be standard fair. Gamut color treatment and restrictions will be lifted. Data loss between capture and display will be mitigated.

So the takeaway being that our period of comfort with production processes will continue to shorten. The pace of transition is happening now.

 

[David Battistella]

Steve,

Thanks for this thread. Since these is always so much talk about skin tones I will add this image. What is important to me is that a camera reproduce colors accurately, skin tones then aren't really a problem. This is the Pantone chart which represents 100 differ the human skin tones.

 

[Mark Toia]

Good thoughts Steve, Agree with you that its all very subjective in most of the debates. And will be for ever more...

I feel that regardless of a particular cameras 'colour science' straight out of the camera, who actually uses direct out of the camera images anyway ? ... I'm sure some people do, but in a commercial & feature film world all images are colour manipulated in some way or form.

I for one in 25 years have never ever used a single shot shooting film or digital images without applying some sort of (grade) look to it... So technically I've thrown the camera manufactures "colour science" out the window. yes... No?

I think a lot of film makers, DOP's are getting caught up colour science discussions.. but in fact they should be talking about colour depth... or dynamic range... image information... etc. The fact is, the more information you have, the more you can manipulate your image to perfection.

8k or 6k 16bit RAW image is 100meg in size per frame... PRORES 4444 HD is 12bit (colour baked) is 15.5 meg per frame... PRORES 442 is 8bit (colour baked) and only 6.6 meg. What has the most colour depth / range will give you the better control to get the best from that said image... (FACT)

I've matched RED with ARRI so many times, I can't even tell the difference myself by the end. As we match the two different codecs perfectly each and every-time. The only way I can tell the difference is when we do a 4k finish, Arri is soft only because it suffers in resolution.
SONY's F65 to me is still has the best image in the world from a digital camera, but I hate the heavy hard to use RAW codec, and the size of the camera... So other things force me away from cameras. Not colour science.

So... I agree with you. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, SONY, BMC, CANON, ARRI, RED all have different looks straight out of the box... but the second you throw that image into a grading program, you've left that manufactures colour world into your own...

I think deep intrenched in people is brand support, peer pressure, client pressure, price, size, reputation and hear say... but the reality is, at the currently level of camera and grading technology, the argument of what camera has the best "look" is purely subjective.

I'm personally into a camera that gives me, RAW, dynamic range, high speed, resolution, is small in size, low in weight, ruggard, (not made of plastic) and easy to use, RED wins for me, until someone else comes in and betters all I have just listed.

The look of and image (that you have colour enhanced) as subjective as music...

 

[Owen Rennie]

I can't tell the difference between a go pro and Dragon half the time...

 

[Christoffer Glans]

W
Are some people's eyes trained better than others? Does getting a perfect score on an Xrite color test mean your eyesight is superior to others who scored less on that test? These are fascinating questions. What if I told you of a well known DP who is color blind. It's a deep topic that shows up in interesting ways on these forums.

If you work with color grading or need to eye-match something to a certain color standard you have to have a perfect score, it's part of the job. It's not about interpretation, it's about scientifically having a good eye for colors, how light affects it together with knowledge about when certain light qualities and environments affect your eye and how to adjust your decision based on it. I have a perfect score on it and it's not a bragging note, it's that I work with color decisions all the time. If someone that I know doesn't have perfect color vision (some people even have different color balance between each eye), I ask them to trust my judgement because if I grade to a certain color it's just like standards, meant to be as normalized to as many as possible. If you adapt to a color vision that is very subjective (compared to perfect color vision scientifically) you will niche that look to only those who see colors in the same way.

As for the debate among different cameras. Yes, it's all subjective, but we didn't reach that level before now. Nowadays, all cameras have enough quality in it's image capture process that the debate about what gives "the best image" is an issue for people who haven't really worked with modern cameras. When I see people debating this, it's always people who almost never worked with any of them or only one. All people, me included, who worked with a vast number of different cameras know that all high end cameras are producing a quality that is surpassing our eyes capabilities to see past the differences.

The thing that IS debatable is resolution, production workflows, optical errors in lenses and OLPFs and so on. These things affect which camera to choose. A red is a smaller camera than an Alexa, the Red has more resolution than the original Alexa, the BM has complex RAW handling while Red has a flexible one, an anamorphic lens distort the image in a certain way than spherical and so on. David Fincher choose primarily for the RAW workflow and resolution so that he could manipulate the image as much as possible in post. He couldn't do that with any other camera. He also choose Red because of the close relationship he had with the company, being able to tailor-order a carbon Red One over a weekend.

When it comes to camera choices for anyone who isn't an internet trolling fanboy without any real production knowledge, it mostly comes down to the workflow and post production capabilities. Red means more control, Alexa means faster delivery for instance (debatable now with the Red proxies though).

For real professionals, I'd say that the discussion about which camera delivers the best image is not a very professional one. The debate should be about camera operation, post production capabilities and workflow speed. THAT is all there is to discuss because it's what really affects a production or project.