I was at a small/middle sized (5 full time staff + many freelancers) production company the other day and I asked them what percentage of their projects they shoot in Log? They surprised me by saying in the last couple of years they had shot 2-3 projects in Log, the rest in Rec709. I asked them why and they explained they couldn't see the value in Log for most of their projects.

Now these guys do a mixture of stuff from basic RnG to high end documentary and they have some big international clients.

So that got me wondering whether there really is 'a lot' to be gained by shooting in Log, given how it dominates so many video forums... and so I assume everyone is at it.

Into this mix I have now seen several 'example' Log videos that folks are proudly putting on the Net. Some of them are devoid of much contrast, whilst others are shot in scenarios where (from what I understand) Log just isn't needed, eg a cloudy day shooting on/at tarmac or shooting at night.

Since I have only dabbled in Log and haven't yet had time to learn how to grade it in Resolve, I'm curious to know whether others feel it's worth the effort, offering a lot more over Rec709. Some Log/709 video comparisons would be much appreciated if you have them.

Since I have only dabbled in Log and haven't yet had time to learn how to grade it in Resolve, I'm curious to know whether others feel it's worth the effort, offering a lot more over Rec709..

Well, that's the key right there. LOG requires a a commitment to grade in Resolve or Baselight or some other dedicated color grading program. If someone wants to shoot LOG and just apply a quick boiler-plate LUT in post, or do all their "grading" with the weak tools found within their NLE (even though the NLEs are getting better), then yes, there will be virtually no benefit of having shot LOG.

I would argue that anyone who cannot see the benefit of LOG, or poo poos the difference it makes has probably not looked into it deeply enough. 90% of the time if I shoot something LOG vs. REC709 there is a very noticeable differences in the final output. Plus LOG gives me tons of options in post, where REC709 is mostly burned in.

But if someone doesn't want to take the time to learn Resolve (it's free) then they should stick with REC709 and go happily along their merry way. I am not saying that great things cannot be done without LOG, I'm just saying that LOG takes your work to a new level. Anyone who says otherwise is probably inexperienced in the use of LOG.

Hi Doug. Do you have any examples (either via Resolve or otherwise) of the same scene shot in both Log and 709?

Also do you shoot mostly in Log?

Sorry, I've done a lot of testing of the two modes when doing research for my various Sony camcorder training videos, but nothing I'd be able to post publicly.

On my FS7, I would say I shoot:

70% S-LOG2 (graded in Resolve)
20% S-LOG3 (graded in Resolve)
10% various Custom Scene files (minor adjustments in Premiere)

Nigel, you ask a great question here.

LOG is great. It brings fantastic flexibility in post. However, it's only a capture and archival technique. 99% of what you deliver for display is a rec709-ish gamma. If you are doing true HDR delivery, that's another ball game but most of us today are still doing rec709 delivery.

So, why shoot log with 13 or 14 stops,....normalize it to 6 or 7 stops of rec709 and throw away all the rest of the DR that you worked so hard to capture? Answer? To "store" it. To have more than you need. Why? Because you dont have to decide what to keep in your rec709 bucket in the field...you can now make that decision in post at a later date. You can grade a project today and go back to it 5 years later and say "Yknow what?...I'm going back to that LOG and I'm going to completely change the highlights, brightness and shadows of my project 5 years back..."

Yes,...you can do that with LOG!...not with rec709!!!

Remember, once you clip something in rec709 in the field or you wished that you overexposed rec709 to see deeper into the shadows....it's too late to get that lost dynamic range back in post. In rec709, you have 6-7 stops in the field, if you got it, great, if you didn't,....you lost it forever. In LOG, you could have 14 stops and from that you can pick the "right" 6-7 stops that you need from it. (and maybe change your mind years later) LOG is a less "destructive" processes than rec709. LOG is more tolerant in that regard

Beware,....LOG will cost you!

SLOG-2 is tough on 8 bit CODECS. "Banding" problems can be a price you pay. 8bit CODECS are not made for heavy stretching and SLOG-3 is downright brutal on 8bit CODECS. If you dont over expose your SLOG by 2 stops, your signal to noise ratio is going to really show itself. For me, in SLOG, I tend press it upwards pretty hard before clipping. Bringing it back in a more downward trend sends noise down with it....but that's just me. Others might be more inclined to follow a strict Sony rule book on this and possibly leave more unused headroom at the top...I dunno.

Yes,....grading LOG requires practice. It's one thing to get the brightness with a right with a LUT but SLOG will also throw you color shift curve balls. I cant tell you how many "bad" SLOG grading examples I have seen on the web. I CONSTANTLY see people post SLOG graded videos where the grass looks like it's nuclear and glowing radioactive!!! SLOG "can" give you THE most unnatural looking green channel you have ever seen. Many times I have had to work separately on the green channel to swing its phase and work with green saturation.

LUTS can get you 80% there but that's it. You will need to manually tweak it the rest of the way in terms of color shift, mids, highlights and shadows. (classic color wheels)

This is why I tell people to shoot SLOG under different situations. Deliberately underexpose it badly, ever expose it badly. Take that back to your NLE and see the problems they bring. This will HELP you in the future and when it's exposed correctly, you will see how your job gets easier.

DaVanci is amazing, and pretty much the best out there, no doubt. But it's not the "only" software that will give you good results. If you have an 8bit source, nothing will add accurate bit depth to your video. So working in a 32bit float math is awesome but it wont change your 8bit into 10bit values. Every color change will still be in 8 bit steps. Yes, you can still do good work in Premiere/Lumeteri. Learn DaVinci though, it's free and awesome.

For me, rec709 is rec709. Whether it was shot in SLOG, graded and discarded down to rec709 or if it was only rec709 in the field to begin with...it's still just 6-7 stops anyway. You cant keep it all and maintain good rec709 contrast.

When rec2020 gets more popular, your SLOG footage can be re-graded for that and you will CERTAINLY have a big gain in your delivery video then.

Practice with SLOG, experiment with it,...play with it. You'll get it quickly if you do. Look for SLOG graded videos on the web. Look at the good ones, notice the bad ones and watch for radioactive, nuclear colored grass and leaves! You will find those videos right away!...even from guys/gals that call themselves SLOG "pros" ;-)

CT

Only a fool would shoot S-LOG with an 8-bit codec.
I totally disagree that Premiere can be used for S-LOG. Waste of time.
A starting LUT is almost mandatory for S-LOG3 but totally optional for S-LOG2.
RAW is even better because you can grade it as either S-LOG2 or S-LOG3 after the fact.

Sony PMW-F55 4K RAW - Before and After Grading Demo on Vimeo

Because you dont have to decide what to keep in your rec709 bucket in the field...you can now make that decision in post at a later date. You can grade a project today and go back to it 5 years later and say "Yknow what?...I'm going back to that LOG and I'm going to completely change the highlights, brightness and shadows of my project 5 years back..." CT

It's actually even better than that because using power windows in Resolve you can have multiple buckets. For example, maybe I want to grade the sky one way and the foreground another way. I do not need to apply the same grade to the whole image. So while any given part of the picture might only be handle 7 stops of dynamic range, I don't have to use the same 7 stops on all parts of the picture. This is why you need Resolve and not Premiere. This is why you need to grade by hand and not just expect to apply a blanket LUT across all footage and walk away. S-LOG takes a commitment, and that's why you see a lot of crap because people buy the hype of S-LOG but don't want to put the work into it in post. Some of these are the same people who buy the hype of big sensor cameras and then use consumer f/6.3 lenses then wonder why their footage doesn't look good. There are no shortcuts.

Thanks Cliff. That makes a lot of sense and probably explains why the production company I visited isn't shooting Log too often. Possibly their projects have a limited shelf life and there isn't much reason to revisit the rushes further down the track.

Doug, the power bucket option inside Resolve is the best argument I've come across for Log thus far. Assuming you can mask, grade and layer segments, it makes sense of Log in a 6 stop world.

I had a look at your Log grading video, which is impressive and the colours certainly pop on my iPad screen. But I was wondering (and this is not a challenge) would you have got something very similar if you had taken 709 into Resolve for the same scenes (particularly the bridge) and graded it appropriately?

Incidentally I 100% understand and agree that I need to learn/use Resolve for Log, but the challenge is the time needed to do so. My business model/workflow operates without it for now, so I'll need to wait until things get a little quieter, most likely the fall.

But making my clients realise they need it, over what I currently give them, is another matter... and is the underlying reason I started this thread. I'm hoping sooner or latter someone will post the same scene shot and graded with Log and 709 so I can see the difference. I'd happily have a go myself, but obviously I don't yet have the Resolve skills.

"I asked them why and they explained they couldn't see the value in Log for most of their projects."

The key word that needs clarification is "value"

Within client-land, it's often a struggle to justify any new technology (learning curve) or anything that will cost them additional money or time (and if you have employees, their time equates to money). While it's great that cameras now feature sensors with all that additional dynamic range, shooting Raw or Log are the best ways to harness that range. Unfortunately I've never felt that just putting the footage through a LUT will provide anything near acceptable finished results without additional work in Resolve or Scratch, so I can't in good conscience tell a client that Log won't either slow them down or cost them additional money. I've also shot commercials in s-Log where there were time and money to do a proper color correct, but the post house chosen by the agency has done such a marginal grading job that I've personally re-graded the footage for the production company so that at least they had something to be proud of -- even if the spot wasn't broadcast that way. Remember, at the end of the shoot day the production company hands off the footage to the advertising agency, which selects a post house and hands it off to them, etc. It's great to have control over the grading -- but much of the time that doesn't happen, and postproduction is often in a different city or state.

So if you're doing your own projects and have time and good color skills, Log is a wonderful way to be able to harness and use the additional dynamic range provided by the sensor. Doug's examples are a great indication of what you can do with that dynamic range. But I find that for 80% of the productions I shoot the production/time/cost pipeline really isn't ready for the Log workflow. If you're trying to convince a client to use Log, make sure they're ready for it!

To go back to the thread title for a second --
If you're doing a shoot with extreme contrast ratios the latitude provided by Log is EXTREMELY VALUABLE! There are many situations where there's just too much contrast range (or too much change in exposure during a shot) to get good results with 709 or Cine/Hyper Gammas. For those shots Log may be your best solution -- just make sure that someone in post doesn't just throw a LUT on them, and actually uses their eyes and brains to adjust them!!!

But I was wondering (and this is not a challenge) would you have got something very similar if you had taken 709 into Resolve for the same scenes (particularly the bridge) and graded it appropriately?

Absolutely not. There is no question in my mind that shooting LOG made a big difference.

It would be great if we could get over this misconception that grading somehow adds hours or days of extra labor to a production. Grading in Resolve is really pretty simple and doesn't take any more time than you'd probably spend to tweak normal REC709 footage that needed some touch-ups. It really is just a myth that grading is a hassle or takes a lot of time. Yes, it is an extra step in the workflow, but not a big time-consuming step. I think that I graded all the shots in the example I posted above in a couple of hours and I was doing a lot more playing around than if it was for a real project. What production, other than news, can't budget a little extra time for grading? Why waste money on fancy equipment with high-end capabilities and then not use them. Yeah, I know it is ultimately up to the client, but that is where client education and a little hand-holding can really pay off. Grading is an important part of the process and I look forward to it as much as I used to look forward to developing and printing photos in my old B&W darkroom. My 2 cents.

Doug,
You get to edit and finish what you shoot, but for those of us who hand over the footage at the end of each shoot day the realities of postproduction are often different. Most of the corporate clients who make up a large portion of my work have a significantly different workflow. I'd be surprised if they do any color tweaking at all on more than 10% of the finished piece; and if we're shooting with three or four or five cameras and one of them needs a little color adjustment in post I'm the one who ends up fielding complaints about it. And there certainly aren't any color correct monitors in their brightly fluorescent lit editing cubicles. On the other hand, they are good clients, treat us well on set and pay quickly -- and we do our best to make sure that everything we shoot is as 'ready for air' as we can make it. These are the kinds of companies that have trouble seeing the 'value' in Log, since they have neither a staff trained in color correction nor the inclination to budget any time at all for it. And as journeymen cinematographers we still need to provide them the best images we can.

Only a fool would shoot S-LOG with an 8-bit codec.
I totally disagree that Premiere can be used for S-LOG. Waste of time.
A starting LUT is almost mandatory for S-LOG3 but totally optional for S-LOG2.
RAW is even better because you can grade it as either S-LOG2 or S-LOG3 after the fact.

Sony PMW-F55 4K RAW - Before and After Grading Demo on Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/169945272)

LOL,....well Doug, I wouldn't go "that" far are to call call people "fools" if they shoot SLOG on 8 bit.

Can you shoot SLOG-2 in 8 bit? Sure you can! Can you get a good looking image? Of course you can! Will it give you 10 bit results?,...no, of course it will not. Can an 8 bit shooter benefit from SLOG-2?...of course he/she can. Please,...12bit raw is only available in UHD from the FS5 raw upgrade. If you dont have that, and are shooting 8 bit,...if done correctly, you can get good looking video. There are THOUSANDS of stunning A7s videos shot SLOG-2 in 8bit. Yes,..8bit ProRes will be significantly better than internal long GOP but without Sony XAVC-l/S noise reduction. But Long GOP is still usable.

Permiere?...ZILLIONS of SLOG videos have been graded with Premiere users. Trust me, they don't all look bad!! (no matter what Doug might think) Yes, I know that Resolve is the defacto standard but Premiere is not a "waste of time"?? No,...that's just weird talk.

I do have to laugh when I see people preach the..."there is only ONE way to do something"...theory.

There is ONE way to "expose"......"properly". (I love the term "proper exposure")
8bit cant be used for SLOG or you are a "fool".
There is ONE program to color grade with or you are "wasting your time".
Zebras must be set "this" way....my way.

I mean, I could go on and on from posts you have made in the past. Bottom line? FACT = Film makers are creating beautiful work all around the world on 8 bit and 10bit or DNG. With F55's all the way down to A7s and down to A6300's. They are using all combinations of rec709-ish profiles through SLOG-2/3. They are using Premiere, Vegas, Edius, Avid, Final Cut, Canopus and yes,...the Davinci Resolve that we all love.

Believe me Doug, everybody is making beautiful work all their own way. Your training videos are very nice, I do like them allot but they are NOT a "requirement" for people to make great pictures. There is not one "right" or "wrong" way to do anything. Stop trying to always narrow everything down to this idea.

I say this nicely and with all due respect to you and your work. I just wish you would display this same courtesy to others here....even if you have a different opinion.

CT

Hey Cliff, no offense taken. I accept your comments in the light you have intended, but nevertheless, I'm not going to change my style of posting. Yes, I generally see things as either black or white and I am more than happy to spew my point of view. Guilty. And it makes no difference to me whether that ruffles the feathers of those folks who prefer to see things in shades of gray. I speak from experience and I stand by what I have already posted and wouldn't want to water down my opinions one bit! :-)

But I also appreciate your counterpoint.

You get to edit and finish what you shoot, but for those of us who hand over the footage at the end of each shoot day the realities of postproduction are often different.

Dave, I understand what you are saying, but I think the point of this thread concerns what to do when we DO have a choice. I usually have to shoot REC709 for clients just like you do, but when the choice is in my hands, S-LOG is generally my choice for the reasons I've already stated. But yeah, we aren't always in a position to make that choice. But with that said, I can and do, take every opportunity to educate my clients and lobby for what I think is best -- not just for S-LOG, but also for codec, 4K vs. HD, overall workflow, style, and anything else I feel I can help with. That is part of the service I provide. No one's gonna call me a "yes man" but I certainly don't dictate -- what I do is try to educate those with open minds and let them make the choice. To do otherwise would be disservice to the people who have hired me for my "expertise". I expect that same attitude from people I hire to do work for me, whether that person is a plumber, auto mechanic, designer, animator, etc. I want them to tell me what they think and make their case if I am going in the wrong direction.

A practical question.

We all shoot in a variety of circumstances, for example mixing indoor interviews with outdoor cutaways.

Obviously using S-LOG for indoors work is pointless and a waste of time when there aren't enough stops in the shot to make it worthwhile.

But those outdoor cutaways could be S-LOG. Anyone mixed the two in a production?

I'm doing this kind of work later in the month so I may take a few backup shots on S-LOG and see how it pans out (having first taken the same shot in my usual custom Cine gamma).

Well? Yes, it's true that SLOG indoors is far less necessary, especially if you control the lighting. But there can be some exceptions to that if you consider shooting inside and possibly protecting the bright scenery outside a window. This part of a shot could otherwise be blown out by rec709. SLOG can also capture speakers using projection screens that burn rec709. One time I masked a static PowerPoint and graded that differently from the speaker. SLOG made that possible.

Generally speaking I think you are right about not needing SLOG indoors too often. Lighting your subject in front of a window is no doubt the only way you want to go if that's possible.

I have mixed rec709-ish and SLOG shots together with no problems.

CT

Cheers.

Yes I was thinking of controlled and properly lit and setup situations. If you've done the job properly you aren't going to have the range there to need S-LOG.

Also worth commenting that the Cine Gammas are very good and by having a couple of custom presets you can cope with many situations where you may not need or want to go full S-LOG. I have a few (all labelled on the base of my camera) I can flick between.

Hi Marcus, are you happy to share your Cine Gamma settings if they differ from the presets? Np if not, I just like to try out new profiles on lower importance projects.

I've been using the Abel Cine and Light settings on recent projects and they seem to look pleasing enough:

Sony FS5 Scene Files | CineTechnica (http://blog.abelcine.com/2016/02/11/sony-fs5-scene-files/)

There's a few others gained from here which give pleasing results.

Thanks I'll give that a whirl.

LOL,....well Doug, I wouldn't go "that" far are to call call people "fools" if they shoot SLOG on 8 bit.

When watched on my big 55" screen, Doug's grades show exactly the same flaws in grading somebody else mentioned: grass is unnaturally radiant green, plus in most of his samples it is full of noise.

I'm new to Slog (my FS7 camera is just 4 months old), but I already learnt the real benefits of shooting Slog (and mine's 10-bit footage, not 8-bit like that of the FS5) only shows when the scene was heavily back-lit, and I absolutely required to bring out the shadow detail while not blowing the bright background (usually, the overcast but bright sky). And grading in Resolve, after several initial trials I completely abandoned using LUTs (as the color I'm getting with them is unnatural, noisy in shadows, and reveals a lot of strange artifacts as soon as I try to further tune it up using other grading tools). Instead, I'm using RCM - once I applied the right RCM input transform, I never looked back to LUTting!

Speaking of those high-contrast, back-lit scenes that really justifies using Slog: the additional problem arises when such scenery changes to "normal" while I'm shooting for the same project, and I'm getting this uncomfortable feeling that:

- if I stay in Slog for consistency purposes, Slog use for scenes looking great with "normal" (lower DR) settings (i.e.HG/Rec709) will only bring unnecessary complications in Resolve

- switching to HG/Rec709 will bring consistency issues between clips (sure - correctable in Resolve, but at the cost of additional time and effort).

Difficult choice it is in such situation. Therefore I totally agree with someone else's statement that Slog material will make for more future proof archives of my footage (even though, as my main "delivery" setup is my own large SUHD, Quantum Dot Samsung TV already capable of "sort of" HDR and with color gamut close to Rec2020). I even tried grading my Slog3 footage in HDR and rendering to Rec2020, and while the result certainly isn't as gorgeous as true, Dolby Vision pictures I once saw on an industry-grade, HDR Sony monitor - in certainly looks better on my Samsung than even the best HG/Rec709 shot material... But that's jus me; for the reason some of you guys may remember - I'm now a one-band freelancer shooting/editing/grading/delivering "crew". so I can afford all kind of experimenting :)

Piotr

When watched on my big 55" screen, Doug's grades show exactly the same flaws in grading somebody else mentioned: grass is unnaturally radiant green, plus in most of his samples it is full of noise.r
Not on my monitors and scopes. But nevertheless, that is just a matter of taste. The saturation could easily be dialed down, or any number of other changes made, if someone prefers a different look. And this one of the big advantages of LOG and RAW -- nothing is locked in at the time of shooting. It would be great if you can post some examples of your work to illustrate how you prefer a finished grade to look.

But nevertheless, that is just a matter of taste. The saturation could easily be dialed down, or any number of other changes made, if someone prefers a different look. And this one of the big advantages of LOG and RAW -- nothing is locked in at the time of shooting. It would be great if you can post some examples of your work to illustrate how you prefer a finished grade to look.

While I agree the saturation of a particular color might be considered "a matter of taste", Doug, the noise inherent to Slog images (somehow particularly prone to be present in those single-channel-saturated areas, like green grass or deep blue sky) - is NOT. What's worse, it's not easy to get rid of w/o special tools (Resolve Studio's own de-noising algorithm is not particularly effective, while the Resolve version of NeatVideo is very expensive and makes processing extremely slow - like 1 fps (Sic!) - w/o pre-rendering of course)...

And believe me - without those specialized noise-reduction tools, getting rid of the noise in darkish but saturated color areas is virtually impossible, in spite of the Resolve grading tools being very flexible with 10-bit Slog footage. Plus, the trick Alister is preaching (to overexpose Slog shooting by 1-2 stops, so that you can bring the levels down in Resolve thus masking the noise in shadows) is not very effective, as my many trials have proved that the picture suffers from the penalty of losing highlights, while the noise is still there in the shadows - only slightly mitigated by shifting the levels down).

So frankly, it's the noise (and the blocky artifacts, created around the noise particles "objects" (speckles) by XAVC codec - I wrote about them in another post of mine, when I wasn't yet aware the source of those artifacts is indeed the Slog- related noise), that presents the greatest challenge in grading Slog footage - even in such a potent tool as daVinci Resolve. Therefore - as I said before - I'm limiting my use of Slog solely to the super-contrasty (usually back-lit) scenery - and unlike someone said, I shoot Slog as often indoors as I do outdoors, as back-lit situations happen equally often in both situations (think of shooting against the window in a naturally lit room). Even the first Sony demo clips, published in order to show how the huge DR Slog can help you convey through entire workflow from acquisition to delivery, were actually shot indoors. Like the video with 2 women, getting ready inside their Asian room, with beautiful, full -sunshine bright, outside scenery visible through the room exit:

PXW-FS7K (PXWFS7K) : Specifications : United Kingdom : Sony Professional (http://www.sony.co.uk/pro/product/broadcast-products-camcorders-xdcam/pxw-fs7k/overview/) (under "Videos & Updates" tab)

But - in spite of all these shortcomings - I find it a great opportunity to learn and play grading my Slog footage in Resolve. While I can understand all the reservations, expressed in this thread by people who - unlike myself - are under pressure of time, their colorist/grading colleagues, or Clients - I'm totally free from such pressure entirely (being the camera operator as well as the colorist/editor myself, and delivering to myself and my own particular monitoring/viewing hardware) :)...

Piotr

Well, you've done your testing and come to your own conclusions and that is what everyone should do. Fortunately, my testing, results, and opinions don't match yours at all. And judging from all the great work I see from others who have used S-LOG on their productions it is clearly better than you give it credit for. You are welcome to come to your own conclusions. But if S-LOG was as bad as you make it out to be I'd sell my cameras tomorrow and buy something else instead. Fortunately, I am quite happy with results I get on REAL shoots and will be keeping my cameras and continuing to shoot S-LOG with no qualms or reservations about doing so.

While I agree the saturation of a particular color might be considered "a matter of taste", Doug, the noise inherent to Slog images (somehow particularly prone to be present in those single-channel-saturated areas, like green grass of deep blue sky) - is NOT. What's worse, tt's not easy to get rid of w/o special tools (Resolve Studio's own de-noising algorithm is not particularly effective, while the Resolve version of NaetVideo is very expensive and makes processing extremely slow - like 1 fps (Sic!) - w/o pre-rendering of course)...

And believe me - without those specialized noise-reduction tools, getting rid of the noise in darkish but saturated color areas is virtually impossible, in spite of the Resolve grading tools being very flexible with 10-bit Slog footage. Plus, the trick Alister is preaching (to overexpose Slog shooting by 1-2 stops, so that you can bring the levels down in Resolve thus masking the noise in shadows) is not very effective, as my many trials have proved that the picture suffers from the penalty of losing highlights, while the noise is still there in the shadows - only slightly mitigated by shifting the levels down).

So frankly, it's the noise (and the blocky artifacts, created around the noise particles "objects" (speckles) by XAVC codec - I wrote about them in another post of mine, when I wasn't yet aware the source of those artifacts is indeed the Slog- related noise), that presents the greatest challenge in grading Slog footage - even in such a potent tool as daVinci Resolve. Therefore - as I said before - I'm limiting my use of Slog solely to the super-contrasty (usually back-lit) scenery - and unlike someone said, I shoot Slog as often indoors as I do outdoors, as back-lit situations happen equally often in both situations (think of shooting against the window in a naturally lit room). Even the first Sony demo clips, published in order to show how the huge DR Slog can help you convey through entire workflow from acquisition to delivery, were actually shot indoors. Like the video with 2 women, getting ready inside their Asian room, with beautiful, full -sunshine bright, outside scenery visible through the room exit:

PXW-FS7K (PXWFS7K) : Specifications : United Kingdom : Sony Professional (http://www.sony.co.uk/pro/product/broadcast-products-camcorders-xdcam/pxw-fs7k/overview/) (under "Videos & Updates" tab)

But - in spite of all these shortcomings - I find it a great opportunity to learn and play grading my Slog footage in Resolve. While I can understand all the reservations, expressed in this thread by people who - unlike myself - are under pressure of time, their colorist/grading colleagues, or Clients... I'm free from such pressure entirely (being the colorist/editor myself, and delivering to myself and my own particular monitoring/viewing hardware) :)...

Piotr


Remember cassette tapes? Remember how we used to record our audio levels has hot as we could before we clipped or saturated the tape? Why did we do this? Because analog tape has a certain noise floor and recording our signal has high above that noise as we could improved our signal to noise ratio.

Image sensors are analog devises with a noise floor too. (they do get to an ADC quickly with Sony EXMOR tech but not before they pick up their noise floor...like all sensors) So, when shooting SLOG (or even Rec709) you need to think "signal to noise ratio" when shooting. You dont HAVE to expose +2 stops over, but if someone doesn't, they could be leaving lots of UNUSED headroom at the top of their scopes and when they go to normalize it, they are just going to pay a high price in bringing up noise to compensate. This sounds odd to say but even in rec709 the principle still applies. If your intention is to grade it yourself and your scene allows you to get away with letting in more light on your sensor and over exposing without clipping something important, you could cut 3db or more of noise in post by bringing your levels down.....yes, even in rec709! But yeah,...you have allot less headroom to work that with than SLOG and your odds are much less likely. But some scenes could work that way for you. Watch out for any knee that your rec709 might have up there.

It's no different than recording your cassette tape levels that only peak at -12db. You'll be forced to turn the amp volume higher on playback and that raises the noise floor. (tape hiss)

So with SLOG-2/3 I often tend to press it aggressively to the right (histogram speaking). In SLOG-2, I might even press my super whites right into clipping at 109 and then back them off to 107. I mean,...it totally depends on the scene but the bottom line for me is to let in as much light as I can, maximum signal to noise ratio and the most DR for shots that need SLOG. (more light on a sensor = less noise)

For me, doing it this way, noise is less of a problem as it gets shoved down on rec709 conversion. Others?...well, they might scream "foul" and say not to break any "rule books". Oh,...I grade what I shoot so I'm not handing to any unsuspecting client or coworker.

SLOG has allot of headroom and no hard knee to deal with at the top. People don't have to use all that headroom, but it's truly a waste if they don't and the less headroom they use, the more noise they will have to deal with in post.

As far as green color shift? Yeah, I used to fight with that in SLOG. I too sometimes get radioactive, nuclear glowing green grass. Grass and leaves are something the human eye is used to seeing in nature everyday so when it's "off" it stands out much worse that if someones green shirt is off. So yeah, I'll pull back on green saturation and the lightness of the channel. Also, shifting the green channel phase (tint) will also help.

Oddly enough. I tried shooting a green Listerine bottle with my FS5 in S-LOG 2&3 with all S-GAMUT flavors. They all turned that green bottle "blue" or "teal". I then tried it again but with my A7s-II....same thing. Tried with my A6300....same thing. All cameras S-Gamut's shifted green in the blue direction.

I then decided to switch over to the "PRO" Gamut with S-LOG 2/3 but pulled back the saturation to -8 in camera. Oddly enough, all three cameras color were spot on accurate, before and after the grade. No shifting or individual channel saturation was needed. (just and overall saturation adjust)

I'm still experimenting with SLOG and "PRO" -8 color gamut. For years I have always used S-GAMUT with SLOG....but so far so good.

Well, you've done your testing and come to your own conclusions and that is what everyone should do. Fortunately, my testing, results, and opinions don't match yours at all. And judging from all the great work I see from others who have used S-LOG on their productions it is clearly better than you give it credit for. You are welcome to come to your own conclusions. But if S-LOG was as bad as you make it out to be I'd sell my cameras tomorrow and buy something else instead. Fortunately, I am quite happy with results I get on REAL shoots and will be keeping my cameras and continuing to shoot S-LOG with no qualms or reservations about doing so.

All I said has only been intended to (partially) confirm what some other participants in this interesting thread have said; I've never dismissed or denied advantages of shooting/grading with Slog entirely! So believe me - I'm not going to drop using it when (basing on my test) I assess Slog would be advantageous... And even less likely will I sell my wonderful FS7 for this (or any other) reason!


I then decided to switch over to the "PRO" Gamut with S-LOG 2/3 but pulled back the saturation to -8 in camera. Oddly enough, all three cameras color were spot on accurate, before and after the grade. No shifting or individual channel saturation was needed. (just and overall saturation adjust)
.

Interesting technique, Cliff (particularly not fiddling with individual channels, and yet getting intended results of mitigating those offending channels in the first place) - I will certainly try it out myself! Thanks for sharing;

Piotr

Interesting video that compares 709 vs Log in places: FS7 and FS5 - How well do they get along? on Vimeo

Not sure I always like the graded Log, but it does looks less 'video' than the 709 on my Ipad. But perhaps the 709 could have been graded more in that direction, ie that sepia'esque filmic look.

Thanks for sharing that, Nigel!

I'd be most interested in knowing how you "delog" your footage shot with the "PRO" Gamut with S-LOG 2/3 but with saturation pulled back in camera; are you using LUT (if so, which one), or DCM in Resolve?

Thanks,

Piotr

I didn't shoot it Piotr. I just saw it pop up on one of the four FS5 Facebook groups I follow. Given my original post/request for any direct rec709 vs. Log comparisons, I thought I'd share it.

I didn't shoot it Piotr. I just saw it pop up on one of the four FS5 Facebook groups I follow. Given my original post/request for any direct rec709 vs. Log comparisons, I thought I'd share it.

Thanks, but I was actually referring to your previous comment (in your post before sharing the Vimeo link).
So, on a more general note - how do you grade your Slog/Pro gamut, de-saturated footage in Resolve (or any other NLE you happen to be using)?

Cheers

Piotr

Thanks, but I was actually referring to your previous comment (in your post before sharing the Vimeo link).
So, on a more general note - how do you grade your Slog/Pro gamut, de-saturated footage in Resolve (or any other NLE you happen to be using)?

Cheers

Piotr

My only experience with S-Log thus far was a few weeks ago and it was a personal experiment rather than a paid job. I edited it in Premiere (which wasn't fun) and the results were ok (see below). I accept I need to learn Resolve to do Log justice, but it's carving out the time. My clients aren't asking for Log and most of them wouldn't even know what it is. So mastering it seems a luxury for me personally right now. But that's not to say I won't try or aren't interested, just needs must.

However I do think this will all change when HDR TVs really take off. But by that time I suspect log will be replaced by a codec that captures most/all of the dynamic range at source in the (then) new cameras.

Here's my ne and only S-log experiment I referenced: S-log Test - 25p on Vimeo

Difficult choice it is in such situation. Therefore I totally agree with someone else's statement that Slog material will make for more future proof archives of my footage (even though, as my main "delivery" setup is my own large SUHD, Quantum Dot Samsung TV already capable of "sort of" HDR and with color gamut close to Rec2020). I even tried grading my Slog3 footage in HDR and rendering to Rec2020, and while the result certainly isn't as gorgeous as true, Dolby Vision pictures I once saw on an industry-grade, HDR Sony monitor - in certainly looks better on my Samsung than even the best HG/Rec709 shot material... But that's jus me; for the reason some of you guys may remember - I'm now a one-band freelancer shooting/editing/grading/delivering "crew". so I can afford all kind of experimenting :)

Piotr

Just to tell you guys that since the above post of mine - having climbed higher on Resolve learning curve - I now almost exclusively grade for HDR 10 (ST. 2084). least demanding type of HDR standards - and the results I'm getting put an end to my skepticism towards using Slog3/S-Gamut3.Cine. Today, I shoot exclusively in Slog!

Piotr

Everything? Indoors and low light too?

1080 and UHD? 8 bit too?

CT

Why the mockery, Cliff?

I have FS7, so no 8 bits at all. I didn't sell my workhorse EX1 to shoot HD on FS7, either... So yes - everything: UFHD at 25 or 50 fps, or 4K DCI...

Not that I need excuses, but after becoming partially disabled I don't shoot or edit professionally any more - and doing it for my own pleasure I can afford doing it the "new better way" at my own pace. With no clients' demands, time pressure etc.

And ever since I stopped skimping on Resolve software and hardware, I discovered how really potent a system daVinci can be. With my Studio license, Decklink 4K Extreme 12G with HDMI 2.0a mezzanine card - and of course my FS7 S-Gamut3.Cine/Slog3 footage on input, and Rec.2020/ST.2084 on output, feeding my HDR10 (up to 10x 100 = 1,000 nits) capable Samsung SUHD TV, I have all HDR workflow ingredients at hand. Sure, it's the "poor man's flavor of HDR, and not even to compare with Dolby Vision - but with the Sony BVM X300 monitor costing half of my 400 hp BMW, I'm not THAT crazy (plus I don't need it).

If you don't know what I'm talking about, you can read how simple the HDR10 workflow is on page 186 and on of the Resolve manual. My original reservations about Slog(3) footage tending to be noisy have been mitigated the moment my Resolve Studio license allowed for Noise Reduction here and there...

Rec.709? It may look great on regular (U)FHD TV, but after you use BM RCM with Slog3 on input, and Rec.2020 with PQ "gamma" of ST.2084 on output to "feel the bin" of this HDR1000 capable TV - the huge DR, contrast, and above all: your 1,000 nits superwhites still containing actual color instead of Rec.709 washed-out highlights - you will never look back at Rec.709.

Try it, Cliff - even with FS5 you can, even though with the additional investment for shooting RAW on external recorder. If you are OK with QFHD at up to 24/25/30 fps only, you can save on the $1,500 12G Decklink and buy the $195, 6G, 4K mini-monitor Decklink model that have just been announced (https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/decklink/techspecs/W-DLK-32).

Piotr

Woah there Poitr, I'm NOT mocking you. I only do that (slightly) to people that get nasty to other people on this board. Never to normal, nice people.

I didn't notice you were on a FS7. I also only ask that because generally speaking SLOG "supresses" brightness by a certain ratio...for lack of a better word...and that can make low light shooting very challenging.

That's all I was getting at. I have never experienced FS5's raw bUT I have on the FS700 and I love that.

For people that shoot LOG on 8 bit, you must be very careful....you "can" get good results but you have to also live with the artifacts that heavy stretching of 8 bit values bring too.



CT

Hi Cliff,

Sorry for suspecting you of mockery towards my enthusiastic (and a bit "neophyte" sounding) comment on using Slog; somehow when posting it, I forgot that in this forum, there are more FS5 than FS7 users, and of course most of my enthusiasm only applies when one has 10-bit footage to start with. You probably remember how a few months ago, I was debating on which of the 2 cameras to choose; I must tell you that - even though the FS7 is heavier and seemingly a worse choice for somebody with my neck spine condition - now that I discovered the possibilities the 10-bit XAVC codec provides when grading in Resolve, I don't regret it for a second...

And of course -as you know - it's also great that even with the FS5, with the latter upgrade and some additional hardware investment, all those exciting possibilities are open to FS5 users, as well.

Cheers, mate!

Piotr