Originally Posted by MTyson
Just curious and I don't mean to sound condescending or anything, but what is accurate about dark areas being crushed into oblivion in the Canon shot? To me that makes it much more artificial than the Sony. The Sony was far more accurate to how the eyes would see the dynamic range from light to dark in that given scene. I'm just curious is all, because I never understood why people think that's even close to accurate & how the eyes see. The human eyes see much more dynamic range from light to dark, which much more representative in the Sony shot than the Canon. Although Cinestyle would help the Canon tremendously in this shot for dark areas, so I already know it's more capable than this scene shows.
Everyone does have their own taste though. I just never understand why something so contrasty the details in dark areas vanishes can be considered anything close to accurate or good. It's far from it in my view and something I've always found to be among the most atrocious video traits, which is why I love to have a custom picture style or even better, shoot RAW.
First, I was there. So I know what the scenes looked like. Second, all the video is a compromise, given the limited dynamic range. Bright sunny days are very contrasty, and the colors are bright and details are sharp. The Sony picture is soft, muted (relatively) and has odd green colors for green foliage (the original, not the edited version, which is even further from the reality). So, the Canon to me
, of course, evokes the original scene much more than the Sony.
When you look at an almost white flower against dark-green fir trees in the shade (the reality), you do not notice the details of the pine needles. Your argument about what is "artificial" would suggest that any oof backgrounds (bokeh!) should be ruled out because our eyes have much greater depth of field than an f1.4 lens wide open on a big sensor. What the oof background does is reproduce psychologically how we view a scene - we focused our attention to the object in the foreground and did not pay attention to the background. The dark, oof background highlights (and complements aesthetically too) the white flower, and that is the way we would experience it.
In audio, it is the same thing: we aim to reproduce psychologically
, say, a live performance given the limitations of stereo speakers or headphones. We want the sound to seem like a live performance as someone might experience it (this justifies, for example, artificially increasing the amplitude in the recording of a solo instrument). And it turns out that this objective is not the same as a simple set-up aiming to mimic the human ear. Others might prefer a sound that "sounds good" or evokes a mood or is suitable for those whose hearing can no longer detect highs or is just flat (and flat sounding).
I like video that suggests being there, just like the audio I produce. Soft, odd-colored video is a style, one that is perfectly interesting and artisticly valid, but it is not the same aesthetic as trying to evoke psychological reality (which I prefer), given the constraints of the equipment. Same reason I do not like videos with no ambient sound - they are no longer conveying the reality of the scene - it is something else (again, perfectly ok, but not the same objective).
Reproducing the dynamic range (or focus ability) of the human eye in a video does not convey reality as humans experience it or remember it. I do agree that the Canon 'Standard' Picture Style is a bit too contrasty even given these aesthetics, so I will be experimenting with lowering contrast. Interestingly, the Cinema look that is an option on Sony camcorders does exactly what you dislike - crush blacks and highlight mid tones - so contrasty is their notion of a film look! Interestingly too, the video from the GH3 (using its default style) looks much more like the Canon than the Sony, but of course one can change all of this any way one likes.
(I do not understand why you mentioned 'condescending'?)Edited by markr041 - 8/5/13 at 2:12pm