DIGIC8 Metering (and a rant about the evolution of DIGIC software and post processing on the M)

nnowak wrote:

RLight wrote:

nnowak wrote:

I know in the past you were not happy with the color from your M cameras and we're experimenting with various picture profiles. I think you had settled on a "Nikon" profile. Is that still the case, or are you using default Canon profiles now?

When I switched to the G1X III, I went with Marco's suggestion of Fine Detail +1 Saturation. However, I found particularly with video, it looked unnatural and after about 7 months-ish I abandoned the regime in favor for Standard for all SOOC JPEG and video output with defaults but kept processing the RAWs with the same modified fine detail regime. After doing some large prints of older material, ironically from the Rokinon 50mm, I figured out this too wasn't a good thing and then went standard (with defaults) for my RAW processing workflow as well.

.
After my stent with the M50 and now R though, I figured out each picture is different and based off what I want, that is contrast with highlight retention (fine detail), emphasis on blue/greens with some warmth and stronger sharpness (landscape), actual portraits (Snapshot Portrait, it's a downloadable picture profile from Canon), or something in between landscape and standard (autumn hues, also downloadable from Canon) or just plain ol standard.

.
These days I shoot all standard, and reprocess RAWs for either printing, or sharing with others to taste (IE selecting the best Canon-produced picture style for the scene, and then if needed, slight tweaks to it, usually 1 stop or less if in DPP4) either in camera, or in DPP4. If it's from the R, it's in-camera. If it's from an M, it's obviously in DPP4.

.
I still do (sometimes) miss the more punchy look of my ol 5DIII / EOS M / M2, but, I prefer the accuracy and true to life of the R for most things

.

Canon has succeeded in giving me what I want, before I know it. Rare these days for a company to do that (Apple used to). It was an internal search process; it's not something I just woke up one day and said, "lets do standard!" rather it was a graduation in thought. Video and large print (A3+) really drive this point home if in doubt.

.

I'll say this, less is more. Color science is tricky, and even 1 stop of contrast or saturation, tone, etc, can make or break it. Even a fraction of one for that matter. Custom picture profiles usually exceed this and hence I've abandoned third party picture styles in favor of Canon's own which are subtle, but sprinkle flavor, character, as needed.

.

Oh, I've even gone as far as use faithful, on a couple shots recently. Sometimes you want a more subdued look. Go figure.

Have you tried either Canon's Video X profile or the Technicolor Cinestyle profile for shooting video? I have always hated the standard profile for video as it tends to completely overcook the image and spits out something that looks like it only has 5 stops of dynamic range.

I've tried both and they definitely are an improvement as far as DR is concerned.

But, they're also dull in terms of color rendition for my tastes.

I haven't touched video editing in some time, but, if I were, those would be vastly superior. For SOOC though? Fine detail is notable as you pickup about a stop, without much loss of kick. Win-Win.

In fact, I'll go and edit my C3P on my EOS R and change the picture profile to Fine Detail... Should've done that sooner...

When you press record on an EOS R, it uses C3P's settings irregardless of what stills mode you're in... You can override this by going into video mode. I don't. I just take whatever C3P is set to, which I have at 1080/60P high compression with defaults, no digital IS as the lens IS is REALLY good on the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro STM.

Edit:

I just realized, I've only tried Video X once, I think I'll give it another whirl...

Technicolor, I genuinely beat up and don't care for. But, while I'm at it, I'll give it another go with modified defaults, say more saturation and contrast? Why not?