Hopefully now the bad taste is out of every 'current' s-log owner's mouths....

I'm editing some recent footage I did around the city in s-log and I'm really impressed with the results. I'm wondering, is it always necessary to color grade s-log files, because it looks really good straight out of the camera, not so washed out as I thought. I recorded constantly on 5600K at 0db. Grading does enhance the colors, but doesn't necessarily improve details.

Perhaps this is just my awkwardness with color grading. I'm using FCPX, which I know is on the nose of many people these days.

Has anyone else found their raw s-log to be good enough?

Does it "need" to be? No. If your happy and your client is happy, go for it. Personally I far prefer more contrast and saturation. Personal taste.

It's a look that some folks have opted for in the last few years, starting with what flat Red transcodes look like.

In my field, there's a director named David Atobelli who has made flatter, more desaturated images part of his signature look, and he gets plenty of work with that. He's not the only one, google a DP named Kaspar Tuxen.

In the end, it's whatever you like and your clients like that flys. With all due respect to the brilliant engineers at Sony, making all your images look exactly what an engineer intended is probably a bad idea if you want to differentiate yourself in the marketplace. I try to make a habit out of misusing my gear, it makes life interesting.

For dream sequences, flash backs, night time and the like I used to use 'bleach bypass' a desaturated slightly silvery look. I can easily see using ungraded S-Log for that.

Its also very interesting to boost only one color channel at a time. Imagine only your reds, or blues popping.

Graded and ungraded material; original files with s-log.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=25720&stc=1&d=1328442622
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=25721&stc=1&d=1328442622

Shame it's over exposed. The flag poles and sky are well into clipping, its not a good example of the way to use S-Log. The graded shots could have looked just the same if the exposure had been lower, but there would have been the option to avoid the clipped highlights if desired. The normal use of S-Log, generally speaking is to shoot with a lower mid grey point to increase the over exposure latitude, so you can then grade up in post.

Of course ultimately as DoP or Camera operator it's up to you how you choose to expose. But, I would shoot in a way that maximises what can be done in post (which normal means protecting highlights) so that the finished look can be fine tuned later. This does then tend to mean that some kind of grading will be required, but that doesn't mean you have to have a high contrast look, you can still have a flat look.

Alister
I hope you are well. Can I please ask you what you limit your peaks/highlights to on the waveform monitor when shooting S-LOG on the F3? I know you reduce your mid grey levels to around 45, but would you let you highlights clip just into say the 90 zebra level - or would you keep them just peaking at 80 zebra level. Thanks in advance, Mark.

Where I have the time to use them, I use a mid grey card at 38IRE. I allow my whites to go all the way to 107 IRE if I have a waveform monitor available (my Transvideo has a built in WFM). If I don't have a WFM then I use both zebras and the histogram and keep my peak whites below 100% as neither will show small overshoots. Remember to ensure your LUT's are off if using any of the cameras built in measuring tools. I'll often use the centre meter to spot check levels across parts of the scene by panning onto them.

Thanks for taking the time to get back to me. I purchased an S-LOG upgrade only two weeks ago (which is another story!) but haven't had the chance to use it yet. I always shoot with my TVLOGIC monitor so your guidance on how far you let your highlights go to maximise the range is really useful. All my recent work is ENG based where I use my PDW-700. It's funny as with all the work arounds with an F3, you forget just what a fantastic camera the PDW-700 is. Just returned from a weeks shooting in Abu Dhabi and the pictures are just awesome, the light there is lovely. Colour viewfinder, comfortable on the shoulder, Canon HJ22 lens and 50mbps, I ask myself sometimes why I even bother with my F3!! Actually I ask myself this quite a lot!

All the best, Mark

See below for the video I produced based upon this conversation. When grading the work, some parts worked, others didn't.

Melbourne Town January 2012 - YouTube

It's funny as with all the work arounds with an F3, you forget just what a fantastic camera the PDW-700 is.

That is really funny. I just told someone else those exact words last week about my F800 as I am using it more and more as my primary camera on a project I'm working on. I like my F3 for a lot of reasons, but the F800 is a REAL camera with no compromises and really no downside except being a power hog. I can work so much a faster and effortlessly with it. Unlike the F3, there is practically nothing I would change about the F800 if I could wave a magic wand.

See below for the video I produced based upon this conversation. When grading the work, some parts worked, others didn't.[/url]

Peter, if you want my opinion, I think way too many of the shots look overexposed in the bright whites. Some of them are so bad you're even getting color shifting. Even without S-Log you should be able to control those highlights and get a better picture just with Cinegammas and properly exposing the image. And with S-LOG, you should be getting a much better exposure and dynamic range.

That is really funny. I just told someone else those exact words last week about my F800 as I am using it more and more as my primary camera on a project I'm working on. I like my F3 for a lot of reasons, but the F800 is a REAL camera with no compromises and really no downside except being a power hog. I can work so much a faster and effortlessly with it. Unlike the F3, there is practically nothing I would change about the F800 if I could wave a magic wand.

Doug, I think the real benefit to the F3 is its low light abilities. But aside from that, in good light, the PDW-700 - PDW-800 looks as good as anything? Agree?

The F800 looks fantastic in all kinds of light, not just in "good light". Granted the F3 and FS100 are a little better at low light, but until those two cameras came along and raised the bar even higher, the F800 was the best low light camera I'd ever used.

However, with that said, the F3 also looks great in all kinds of lighting whether it is bright or dark. I have no problems using the F3 out in bright sunshine or contrasty situations even without S-LOG. You just have to set up the PP properly and then nail the exposure -- same as with any camera.

My decision on which camera to use between the F3 and the F800 for a shoot would not be based at all on the lighting conditions because they both do a great job all around.

True, the 700 and 800 do look great in all conditions. Just being able to stand there and pick off so many shots from just the one lens (a Canon HJ22 in my case) on the 700 is so refreshing, even liberating after a time on the F3 ! Not having to change over primes etc. What would be the deciding factor be for you choosing the 800 of F3 for a job, the set up issues of the F3, or would it be the image quality?

Image quality between the F3 and F800 is too close to call. I honestly don't know which one is technically better.

Right now my default camera is the F800. About the only time I use the F3 these days is for interviews or other types of shooting where I want an extra shallow DoF. But even in that regard, the difference between the two cameras is not as much as some people seem to think.

I think a lot of people who are all excited about the shallow DoF capabilites of super-35 cameras are coming from a 1/3" or 1/2" background. Yes, that is a big jump. But if you compare super-35 to 2/3" the difference is not as great as you'd think. Especially if you have a fast lens, such as my f/1.7 Fujinon on the F800 and a slower lens on the super-35mm. I think it is funny when people put a slow lens on the F3 or FS100 because it kills the whole reason for using those cameras in the first place.

That Fujinon HA 22 lens looks lovely. I use a Canon HJ22 - I'm not sure if there is any real difference in quality between the two? Does your Fujinon work with the cameras CA reduction feature? I just had a shoot in Abu Dhabi, below is a short extract from a photo shoot I covered. This just couldn't have been shot on an F3!

Desert shoot. on Vimeo

For about 50K you would really hope that the F800 would SMOKE a 20k camera.

unfortunately it doesn't work out that way! The image you get from the F3 is so 'clean', I really do like it. It's just a pain to use with TVLOGIC monitor, 2 noga arms, Samurai on back, v lock batteries, shoulder support........

Doug, do you what the difference is between your Fujinon ZA22x7.6BERM and the Fujinon HA22X7.3BERM? Looking at getting a used HA22 for a good price.

For about 50K you would really hope that the F800 would SMOKE a 20k camera.

Things changed, very quickly. The F800 is very, very good, but the F3 is THAT good, noise-wise. And now we have the F65 in a 90% usable package for $85K.

I spent 4 days with a reality producer the other week who simply knew of the F3, but hadn't seen what it can do. Some night-time shots examined on a monitor had him exclaiming a bit.

Doug, do you what the difference is between your Fujinon ZA22x7.6BERM and the Fujinon HA22X7.3BERM?

About $12,000.

Seriously, I don't know what the visible difference is. My contact at Fujinon pretty much steered me away from spending more than I needed to and suggested that the ZA was just as good. Yes it does have ALAC, but you have to look real, real close to see what it does.

The only thing I don't like about my lens is the breathing, but I don't know if the HA suffers from the same thing. I've gotten a little spoiled by the primes on my F3.

And now we have the F65 in a 90% usable package for $85K.

No doubt the F65 is a great camera. but even at that price, if I traded my F800 for an F65 I'd go out of business pretty fast. The different workflow requirements and hassles associated with the F65 would kill my productivity. I don't work in Hollywood and don't pretend to work in Hollywood. I work in broadcast television and corporate video, and the F65 is way overkill. There's nobody I work for that would have any idea what to do with those files.

The F800 & F3 combo is working out pretty well for me.

For about 50K you would really hope that the F800 would SMOKE a 20k camera.

And it does. Not necessarily in picture quaity, but in ergonomics, workflow, versatility and many other ways. The difference in cost between a $50K camera and a $20K camera doesn't amount to very much to a busy professional when you spread it out over 2-3 years. Especially if the more expensive camera actually allows you to get more work done faster and better. #1 thing to remember -- this is a business first. I look at every equipment decision partly based on productivity and efficiency.

No doubt the F65 is a great camera. but even at that price, if I traded my F800 for an F65 I'd go out of business pretty fast. The different workflow requirements and hassles associated with the F65 would kill my productivity.

I was only making a statement about how fast things are moving.

?

I agree, they are moving fast. Sorry if I didn't get your meaning.

Well, once again I've generated a lot of conversation at my own expense.

It would be great to see some practical mini tutorials on how to color grade some material recorded with s-log, without the smart ass commentary because I can't relate to it.

Smart ass commentary? I didn't see any smart ass commentary in this thread. What are you referring to?

I guess Peter doesn't like the fact that I felt his shots were over exposed. If your not prepared to get comments, it's best not to post images.

The tutorial would have to start with exposing correctly as if the original footage is over exposed, no amount of grading will ever be able to recover the lost highlights. Of course perhaps that was the look Peter was after, but blown out highlights is not a look that I like.

Alister, I could not have said it better myself.

Where I have the time to use them, I use a mid grey card at 38IRE. I allow my whites to go all the way to 107 IRE if I have a waveform monitor available (my Transvideo has a built in WFM). If I don't have a WFM then I use both zebras and the histogram and keep my peak whites below 100% as neither will show small overshoots. Remember to ensure your LUT's are off if using any of the cameras built in measuring tools. I'll often use the centre meter to spot check levels across parts of the scene by panning onto them.

Alister: I am finding that to get middle grey at 38, my highlights are falling well below 100 IRE. This means I have to up the highlights in post. Not a problem for me, but wonder if you have any advice about this?

Thanks.

No doubt the F65 is a great camera. but even at that price, if I traded my F800 for an F65 I'd go out of business pretty fast. The different workflow requirements and hassles associated with the F65 would kill my productivity. I don't work in Hollywood and don't pretend to work in Hollywood. I work in broadcast television and corporate video, and the F65 is way overkill. There's nobody I work for that would have any idea what to do with those files.

The F800 & F3 combo is working out pretty well for me.


How do the F800 and F3 cut together?

Steve, I think the F3 and F800 would cut together seamlessly, but I've never actually had any reason to use them together on a multi-camera shoot. Even without taking the time to set them up side-by-side, I can already tell the the paint settings I use on each camera come pretty close to the same look. No surprise there, since I programmed them both to give me the standard look I like on any camera.

To answer your other question, when I expose for S-LOG I want my bright whites at around 68% and/or my 18% gray card at 38%.

Exposure is not something that is set in stone. The idea behind setting reflected mid grey at 38 IRE is that you place the middle of your tonal range slightly below the mid point of your full latitude range. Reflected white should then come out around 68-70IRE. This then gives you further headroom for direct light sources such as lamps, the sky or specular reflections. In addition, video cameras tend to perform better in shadow and underexposure compared to highlights and over exposure, so it's generally considered better to be slightly under rather than slightly over.

But, all this theory is based on shooting some imaginary generic scene and as a result is a generalisation and may not be optimum in many lighting conditions. You also need to consider how S-Log works. Each stop is getting allocated roughly the same amount of data as the next. But when you consider that each brighter stop is has twice the brightness range as the previous stop then you need to consider that to some degree, each brighter stop is being recorded more highly compressed than the previous. This means that you can stretch and pull the darker parts of the exposure range more effectively than the brighter part, so you don't want your images to be too bright as this may not grade as well as the same scene exposed a little darker. Now on top of all this you need to consider noise. Underexpose too much and you will have issues with noise when you start lifting the shadow areas and darker parts of the image. So what I'm trying to say is that you don't want to overexpose and you don't want to underexpose. Where exactly you set your exposure will depend on the tonal range of the scene you are shooting. A dimly lit interior may have a much reduced range compared to a sunny exterior and this is where the skill of the operator comes in, knowing when it is desirable to push your exposure up or down.

Normally, mid grey at 38IRE works well and will put you in the right ball park. But if you don't have any direct light sources then you can probably lift mid grey a little, but in my opinion you must always, always protect your highlights. Small specula highlights or a small bright cloud may not show up on a small monitor or VF and might not register on the histogram or zebras so often it's good to have a bit of headroom in reserve.

Sadly I can't say you should always expose "x" at "y" as it's just not that simple. You have to judge for yourself depending on the scene you are shooting and the look you want to achieve. I would not get too hung up on white not reaching 100%, reflected white should only be at around 70%, it's direct light sources you need to watch.

Thanks Doug and Alister. I am finding exactly the same thing -- aiming for 38% for middle grey (using the spot meter on the F3) has worked pretty well overall. But, I ran into a problem in a very evenly lit, but darker room, where I should have pushed this up a bit. Not a big deal, but did have a bit of noise in post.

Right now I have several Colorista presets for various settings: preserve highlights, lift lows, neutral, etc. that I can apply to S-log footage based on the scene. I can then go and tweak as needed. I've found that this speeds up my workflow substantially.

without the smart ass commentary because I can't relate to it.

Sorry, that's a little flippant. There's very few examples out there (before and after) to draw comparisons upon, so I'm doing it myself and I don't mind what people say. I really appreciate the feedback, positive and negative and I'll take all the criticism, but please use some non tech language and some pictures, screen shots (etc.)

I agree with Alister that you can't just rely on one setting, like 38%.

Currently I have A port S-log going to the Samurai and 800%LUT with middle gray at 40 on a TV Logic monitor. I verify with the wave form setting. When the exposure looks right I turn it down another half a stop eyeballing it on the monitor. (The Prolock allows me to adjust fractions of a stop.)

This protects the highlights, which I find the most important thing. The mids and blacks you can adjust later. Blow out the highlights and they stay blown.

In post I first adjust the levels. Auto levels gives an idea where it should end up, but I adjust levels manually.

Then I adjust the middle of the gamma curve downward, which brings the colors back into the picture. If you try to do it with contrast you'll push the highlights back up to blow out.

If I need to I then might adjust colors, but I usually don't need to do it much if at all. If I do its usually a need to add a little more red saturation.

Its working for me. I don't know how anyone else is doing it and would be curious to hear what others are doing.

I don't judge exposure (or color) just by how something looks on a monitor. That's just guessing. I use zebras and/or a waveform monitor for consistancy and accuracy. And with whites hovering around 68%, I have plenty of headroom and my highlights are well protected. That's how I do it.

I do have zebras on set at 70 and 100, but find that more useful for exposing faces not for protecting highlights. I can always bring a slightly under exposed face back up if the highlights are protected.

I mean if you're indoors with your own lights properly set up lights there are no overpowering highlights to protect, then you just set exposure. Its the windows, sky, lights in scene and reflections that are going to jump up to bite you.

I never use zebras on faces because skin tones vary too much from person to person, otherwise it just comes down to guessing. I know what white and gray are supposed to look like.

I'm confused Doug. First you say:

I don't judge exposure (or color) just by how something looks on a monitor. That's just guessing. I use zebras and/or a waveform monitor for consistancy and accuracy.

Then you say:

I never use zebras on faces because skin tones vary too much from person to person, otherwise it just comes down to guessing. I know what white and gray are supposed to look like.


So how do you judge the exposure of a face? You say faces vary greatly, which I agree with, so there is no one level fits all exposure for faces, so zebras and other measurements are not telling you much, but then you don't use a a monitor to judge exposure as that's guessing. Please enlighten me as to how you do it then? Are you just exposing for your whites and then hoping everything else falls into place, I'm not so sure as your footage normally looks well exposed. There has to be some use of the monitor for exposure assessment happening?

Hi Alister,

As you have suggested, I expose for white and then everything else falls into place. It's not like I can expose for whites, midtones, and blacks separately. There can be only ONE exposure, and I base that on whites. I've learned to resist second guessing the exposure by what I see on the viewfinder or LCD and to rely on what the zebras are telling. 99.9% they will be right.

In fact, I must confess that Paul Cronin was helping me shoot something a couple of weeks ago and I broke this cardinal rule. Now I have to grade the footage because I ignored what the zebras were telling me. First time I've made that mistake in a long time.

I compare it to a pilot flying in fog who doesn't believe his instruments, and thus flies into the ground upside down. When I trust my zebras it is always a safe landing.

I just spent a couple of weeks with the F800 and while it seemed perfectly nice, I was missing the range of s-log without doubt. A few times I was up against dappled light or hot backlit sun against blonde hair etc. in uncontrollable circumstances (was shooting a spoof of reality shows) and I was nervous about the degree of overall underexposure if I took the "expose to the right" philosophy too far. It might be a while before I take a 2/3" camera out in a run-and-gun situation again and hopefully by then s-log will be implemented into that body style also.

Take a look at Survivor when the next season starts. The last few seasons have all been shot with F800/700 cameras and I think it is one of the best looking shows on broadcast TV, despite the fact that they are shooting in completely uncontrolled circumstances. The interviews especially just look great.

My only criticism of the way the show looks is that they let white water (ocean waves) blow out and clip too easily. Other than that, the show is a great showcase for what is possible with the F800/700.

Dear Folks,

I have just gotten S-log and am shooting some camera tests. My customers are US network TV dramas and comedies. Can I shoot s-log to the card and let them grade it to match. They have been very happy with the cinegamma profiles to the card. Before someone yells in the night - can they grade the s-log on the card to be better than the cinegamma to the SxS card? All the post is done in Burbank and I don't want to ask them just yet. I dread carrying another box that needs batteries...

Any help would be greatly appreciated and if I have to I will get the Samurai box. Life is to short to get the KiPro.

Michael,
Would highly recommend using an external recorder - preferably one that is 10bit.
Remember, the 8-bit images on the SxS cards can be graded pretty well as long as you aren't stretching them too far.
S-log by its nature requires a greater level of adjustment of the image in post, hence possible problems in flat areas that have slight tonality ramps.
Try your own tests with a mid-tone wall that is not quite evenly lit. Or shoot a magic hour sky. Do some camera moves, then try some color correction on the s-log data and see if you get banding.
It should be better if recorded 10bit 422 or 444.

Well I did the homework. Yes the banding is 2x worse in S-log 8 bit but there is banding in cinegamma as well. The cinegammas look like cartoon colors and I can use this for the Disney sitcoms which want that primary color look. I guess I am forced to get another box to attach. The EI mode has great dynamic range over the non-EI mode and I am not sure why non-EI is even a option. I almost feel like 35mm film from 2 years ago. I am very disappointed in cinegamma color and have to come up with a matrix flat or negative color. Does the WiFi feature allow you to control the camera from a iphone for crane and camera cars?

Hi Alister,

As you have suggested, I expose for white and then everything else falls into place. It's not like I can expose for whites, midtones, and blacks separately. There can be only ONE exposure, and I base that on whites. I've learned to resist second guessing the exposure by what I see on the viewfinder or LCD and to rely on what the zebras are telling. 99.9% they will be right.



There is one very obvious problem with exposing for white. White is not always 100% white depending on the lighting conditions, take for example a white Vortex card in sunlight, this will be a different shade of white in the evening. I am not referring to colour balance here, just exposure.

Ansel Adams developed or should I say mastered the Zone system of exposure and he would base his exposures on a known white/grey (gray) value. But the problem was that under different lighting that grey or white was not consistent. He evaluated a scene and used his experience to meter white as is was seen at that time of day. Hope this makes sense.

So Doug if you base your exposure on a white in subdued evening light then you are in effect going to cancel out the ambient mood, you will produce an exposure which is technically correct for white, but will kill the ambient atmosphere,

Personally I use a combination of zebras, a well setup LCD screen, a Vortex white card and a frequently calibrated monitor. I am still working on how to employ the Zone system to video.

The EI mode has great dynamic range over the non-EI mode and I am not sure why non-EI is even a option.

That should not be the case and is not my experience. All EI mode does is lock the ISO to 800 and then add gain to the LUT's and monitor output instead of adding gain at the camera head. Non EI S-Log at 800 iso and EI S-Log iso should be output exactly the same signal over the A/B outputs, there will be no difference in dynamic range. Non EI os an option for those that want to add gain at the camera head. There may be some advantage to adding in camera gain as it is pre processing, so if recording compressed may be cleaner than adding gain in post.

I must confess that I have only just discovered what S-Log is all about. I am in two opinions on this. Yes, the higher dynamic range will allow more scope for tweaking and indeed capturing detail in both highligh and shadow areas etc.

However, from my own experience, unless your client has their TV, monitor setup correctly, you might as well shoot on any Standard setting. The same hold true for audio. Many times I have worked on a TV production and the director stops the shoot because of a distant sound, car or plane etc. Yet, in an average houehold, the dog may be barking, a lorry drives past your home or any one of the hundreds of other unwanted sounds creeps in.

The point I make is , are we being over concerned about a slight loss of detail in the highlights?

Don't get me wrong, I too strive for perfection in everything I do, but can become obsessed with trying to achieve perfection, when it may not be needed or appreciated.