I know I saw a PDF (think I did anyways) that outlined the options for the S-log with the new firmware. I have figured it out, but always like to have the roadmap just in case. Anyone know where I can find that document? The pamphlet that comes with the card is pretty useless. The manual for the F3 with S-Log included does not refer to S-Log. Thanks, George

Is this what you are looking for?

George, are you talking about the new firmware that puts an S-LOG gamma option in the Picture Profile's menus? I've been beta testing it and it works very well. I'm already working on some new PP settings to take advantage of it. When then new firmware is released soon, every F3 will instantly have an S-LOG option built into the camera.

George, are you talking about the new firmware that puts an S-LOG gamma option in the Picture Profile's menus? I've been beta testing it and it works very well. I'm already working on some new PP settings to take advantage of it. When then new firmware is released soon, every F3 will instantly have an S-LOG option built into the camera.

Hi Doug,
Does the update actually increases latitude as the card S-LOG does?

Sure does. S-LOG is S-LOG.

I just wanted to make sure it wasn't just another flat preset. I was ready to order the full S-LOG card for $899 to have it in by the time a customer request it.
Any idea when it will be released?

Could be as early as this week. It has to pass QC at Sony USA before they will let it out. As usual, Canada will probably put it out there first. As far as I can tell the beta version is fine, so now that NAB is over it should be ready to go pretty soon.

Keep in mind that if you don't buy the CBK-RGB01 upgrade, then you won't have built-in LUTS or 444 output. Those things may make a difference to you, or they may not. Everyone's needs are different.

Doug,
How do the LUTs work with the new software?
Is the LUT always based off whatever adjustments you've made to the SLog you're using?

Also what kind of changes can you make to the SLog file. All the typical picture profile adjustments?
Can you make it less radical- i,e something like C-log on the canon

I'd like to be able record one picture profile to the SxS card and another to the 4:2:2 SDI instead of recording a LUT, but I doubt that's feasable.

I know I saw a PDF (think I did anyways) that outlined the options for the S-log with the new firmware. I have figured it out, but always like to have the roadmap just in case. Anyone know where I can find that document? The pamphlet that comes with the card is pretty useless. The manual for the F3 with S-Log included does not refer to S-Log. Thanks, George

Sorry to still your thread George. I hope that I was able to upload the PDF that were looking for.

Could be as early as this week. It has to pass QC at Sony USA before they will let it out. As usual, Canada will probably put it out there first. As far as I can tell the beta version is fine, so now that NAB is over it should be ready to go pretty soon.

Keep in mind that if you don't buy the CBK-RGB01 upgrade, then you won't have built-in LUTS or 444 output. Those things may make a difference to you, or they may not. Everyone's needs are different.

I only owned the KiPro Mini so if I need 444 I would just rent the SLOG card and recorder. All I've heard of the LUT is that it's not that good anyway.

No problem Douglas... that isn't the one I saw earlier.. I was looking for one that describes all the output options... maybe I was dreaming that they would actually document a feature set.

How about this one.

Yes, that's the one. Thanks Douglas!

Glad I could help.

Doug,
How do the LUTs work with the new software?
Is the LUT always based off whatever adjustments you've made to the SLog you're using?

Also what kind of changes can you make to the SLog file. All the typical picture profile adjustments?
Can you make it less radical- i,e something like C-log on the canon

I'd like to be able record one picture profile to the SxS card and another to the 4:2:2 SDI instead of recording a LUT, but I doubt that's feasable.

1) With the "free" version of S-LOG that every F3 will have after the next firmware update, there are no LUTs. If you want a LUT to be generated within the camera, then you must purchase the CBK-RGB01 upgrade.

2) Yes, you can still use the other Picture Profile adjustments even when you have selected S-LOG as your gamma choice, but some of those other PP adjustments may not behave the same way you are used to. For example, at first I didn't think I would be able to use this new S-LOG option and still create a PP that would not require grading, but now I think that is possible. As of right now I have a PP that I like better than the one I have been using for the past 15 months. But I'm not done testing yet.

3) Without the CBK-RGB01 upgrade, the same signal will be recorded to the SxS cards and the SDI outputs. There's no way to make them different because there are no LUTs.

I did buy Slog CBK-RGB01 upgrade - of course a few weeks before discovering it would soon be free so I do have LUT's available - Thanks Sony - at least I thought it was a great deal for a few weeks.

Was wondering how those LUTS function when you alter the Slog itself. Do the LUTS alter with it?
Wish I could alter the LUT and record Slog unaltered, that might be more valuable.

Quote: Was wondering how those LUTS function when you alter the Slog itself. Do the LUTS alter with it?"

It is not possible to use a LUT (even if you own the CBK-RGB-1 upgrade) at the same time as you are using any Picture Profile - including a Picture Profile that uses S-LOG as the gamma option. Therefore, you cannot alter the S-LOG and use a LUT at the same time. Those two things are mutually exclusive.

Also, if you are using the CBK-RGB01 version of S-LOG, then you can't really change anything about it. Except for a little control over white balance, that version of S-LOG is always the same and can't be modified. Even if you use the "EI" form of S-LOG the actual output is always the same.

Quote: "Wish I could alter the LUT and record Slog unaltered, that might be more valuable. "

What's stopping you? You own the CBK-RGB01 upgrade, so can certainly alter a LUT using CVP File Editor and also record S-LOG unaltered. That's the whole point of LUTs. Technically, the F3 LUTs are more correctly called "MLUTs" or Monitor LUTs because they are intended for monitoring ONLY while the unaltered S-LOG is being recorded. You can make the LUT look however you want, and S-LOG will always be the same if you are using the CBK-RGB01 version of S-LOG. And as I said previously, if you are using the PP version of S-LOG, then you have no LUTs to worry about.

You're making it more complicated that it is. It's very simple, really. Once you get the new firmware and spend 30 minutes or so exploring it things will become more clear.

No I don't think I am. My concern about the LUTS is that they have such low chroma that they don't help much in getting a useable picture on set. It may say 709 but it looks very washed out. That is something that can't be altered by making your own LUT because its 1D not a 3D LUT. I'm just at the discovery point for working with SLog and so I may find they are very useful in the end. At this point I feel it was a waste of money. Alistair Chapman at NAB said he thought the LUTS were very important so I may yet change my mind. I don't want to spend more dough on an HDLink and don't know if that would solve the problem either. perhaps just cranking up the sat on the monitor. Despite many people here telling me that was a bad idea, Alistair thought it was fine.

I'll figure it out eventually. Thanks for the info about the new firmware though. I am curious what the point of making PP files from the SLog was though. Perhaps to create something that is a hybrid - more like C-Log on the Canon? Or just to dial in your color correction for the post guys ahead of time so they know what you want?

double post

I never use LUTs, and fortunately I don't have to work with clients who can't understand what S-LOG is supposed to look like. The way I see it, LUTs just get in the way of me doing my job simply for the sake of someone else having a prettier picture to look at on the monitor. . . a picture that is still inferior and not representative of what the final image will be in post. Screw 'em. I need to see what the camera is shooting at all times in the viewfinder. I can't do that with a LUT turned on.

I completely agree with you that none of the built-in LUTs looks very good, and I have no desire to jump through the hoops necessary to create my own. It is not easy to use CVP File Editor and I am not certain that a good-looking LUT is even possible.

Any client that isn't sophisticated enough to understand why S-LOG looks the way it looks, probably shouldn't be using S-LOG anyway. That's my opinion. I'm sure other people have a different philosophy. As always, since I started shooting 30 years ago, a little client education goes a long way to smoothing out the journey.

I stand by my opinion that shooting S-LOG and configuring the camera is very easy . . . it's what happens in post where the work begins. S-LOG only becomes hard when someone tries to use it in ways it was never intended to do. There aren't very many options with S-LOG and you pretty much give up most control over the camera except for exposure and focus -- so you either take it or leave it. Makes no sense to fight it.

Leonard, if your after something more like Canon C300's C-Log just use Cinegamma curves. You will still have more dynamic range than C-Log and control of colour though PPs.

The C300 in C-Log has been measured as 2 stops short of the F3 in S-Log, and S-Log adds roughly 1.5 stops, ergo an F3 in REC709 still has more range than a C300.

thanks for the help guys. I've had plenty of conversations about whether your monitor matters and clients etc. We all have are ways of working and our different clients. I light pretty carefully and like a reasonable monitor as does my gaffer and most clients. Here I just wanted to find out how the new firmware will work. I'll figure it out.

I never use LUTs, and fortunately I don't have to work with clients who can't understand what S-LOG is supposed to look like. .

Doug, do you think recording S-log 422 to an 8bit recorder has an advantage in post?

While we wait for Doug's answer... my own opinion is that while 8 bit, 422 can be used for S-Log, it is not something I would recommend. I'd rather use a cinegamma with 8 bit recording. 10 bit 422 S-log is another matter altogether, this is well worth using and works very well indeed.

What you have to consider is this. With 8 bit, you have 240 shades of grey from black to super white. Of the 256 bits available, 16 are used for sync, white is at 235 and super white 256 so black to 100% white is only 219. With Rec-709, standard gamma on an F3 you get about an 8 stop range, so each stop of exposure has about 30 shades of grey. When you go to S-Log, you now have around 13 stops of DR, so with 8 bit, now each stop only has 18 shades of grey. Potentially using 8 bit for S-Log, before you even start to grade, your image will be seriously degraded.

Now think about how you expose S-Log. Mid grey sits at 38% when you shoot. If you then grade this to Rec-709 for display on a normal TV then you are going to stretch the lower end of your image by approx 30%, so when you stretch your 18 steps of S-Log grey to get to Rec-709 you then end up with the equivalent of only around 12 shades of grey for each stop, that's less than half of what you would have if you had originally shot using Rec-709. I'm sure most of us have at some point seen banding on walls or the sky with standard gammas and 8 bit, just imagine what might happen if you effectively halve the number of grey shades you have.

By way of a contrast, just consider that 10 bit has 956 grey shades from black to super white. the first 64 bits are used for sync and other data, 100% white is bit 940 and super white 1019. So when shooting S-Log using 10 bit you have about 73 grey shades per stop, a four fold improvement over 8 bit S-Log so even after shooting S-Log and grading to Rec-709 there are still almost twice as many grey shades than if you had originally shot at 8 bit Rec-709.

This is a bit of an over simplification as during the grading process, if your workflow is fully optimised you would be grading from 8 bit to 10 bit and there are ways of taking your original 8 bit master and extrapolating additional grey shades from that signal through smoothing or other calculations. But the reality is that 8 bits for a 13 stop dynamic range is really not enough.

The whole reason for S-Log is to give us a way to take the 14ish stop range of a typical linear 12 bit camera sensor and squeeze as much of that signal as possible into a signal that remains useable and will pass through existing editing and post production workflows without the need for extensive processing such as de-bayering or RAW conversion. So our signal which starts at 12 bits has already been heavily processed to get it from 12 bits to 10. Going from 10 bit down to 8 is a step too far IMHO.

Doug, do you think recording S-log 422 to an 8bit recorder has an advantage in post?

I agree with Alister and he has answered it better than I could. Thank you, Alister.

Alister,
Thanks for all your help with a string of question of SLog at NAB last week. I have a couple more if you're still out there as I was playing with a DSC chart and the matrix last night and looked at some of the set-ups you've proposed on the boards .
The first is still an SLog question that I asked Doug here.

- What is the point of altering SLog with the PP menus in the new firmware especially as it locks you of the LUTS? Do you think it would be possible to make a less aggressive one with more chroma to be similar to C-log and use with 8 bit? Would that be any better than a cine gamma?

- I assumed that I would look (at least to start with ) for one nice color matrix to use with all my gammas and just change the saturation sometimes to accomodate them. (You could of course go for different looks with different matrixes as well.)
I've noticed that sometimes you've often suggested one matrix set-up for a cinegamma and another quite different one say for Rec 709 or for the "faux log " profile on your site. Did you feel that different gammas wanted different color matrix settings or did it just fall out that way when you were playing around?

Thanks to everyone for your help.

Gamma has an effect on the saturation of the image. As the gamma curve alters the luminance of various parts of the image there is a knock on effect to how colourful the image looks as if you raise the luma without changing the matrix the ratio of colour to brightness reduces and the image looks less saturated. The reverse is also true.
So you can use one matrix and then alter the saturation to get a similar look from gamma to gamma, but it may still not look exactly the same.

Many of the looks I create are for specific applications so I often tweak the matrix, so you'll find me mixing and matching different matrix settings to different gammas quite a bit.

I don't have the new firmware yet, so I have not been able to play with it. But in theory it should be possible to create a profile similar to C-Log. But even if you do this your still dealing with a very large dynamic range and 8 bit will still be marginal. The only way your going to make a truly 8 bit friendly log profile will by reducing the dynamic range by adjusting the gamma gain. By the time you've done this, I suspect you'll end up with a curve not dissimilar to a cinegamma. There's no free lunch. If you want to record a greater dynamic range than the cinegammas offer, then realistically you need more data bits than 8.

Going from 10 bit down to 8 is a step too far IMHO.

Thanks Allister, very clearly explained.

Here's a simple test shot I did this morning.

Sony PMW-F3 Picture Profile with S-LOG testing on Vimeo

Sony will soon be releasing a free firmware upgrade (v1.4) for all PMW-F3 owners. A major change for v1.4 is that every F3 will now have a gamma option called "S-LOG" that can be selected from the camera's normal Picture Profile menus.

In the past, if you wanted S-LOG on your camera, you had to purchase the CBK-RGB01 Dual Link 444RGB Upgrade. That is no longer necessary unless you also want to have 4:4:4 output capability and LUTs. You'll still need the CBK-RGB01 upgrade if you want those two features.

The purpose of these simple test shots was to see if I could create a Picture Profile that had better dynamic range that the Cine gamma settings I normally use -- but still be able to create an image that has good saturation, sharpness, and correct black levels so that grading would not be necessary. I prefer NOT to grade if I can get the look I want with a Picture Profile instead. But a little extra dymanic range would be nice.

I have included four test shots:

1) The standard, factory-default look with no Picture Profile or S-LOG is selected.

2) Ungraded S-LOG that was shot with the CBK-RGB01 Dual Link 444RGB Upgrade.

3) A Picture Profile that I call "V-LOG" that uses S-LOG for the gamma setting - PLUS several other profile adjustments to provide a pleaseing final image that will not require grading.

4) The standard Picture Profile I normally use and describe in my F3 training DVD called "Vortex-A" which uses a Cine gamma and other settings that are very different from "V-LOG".

To keep the exposure consistent, the aperture was adjusted so that the white styrofoam on the right side of the screen was hitting 90% on a leader WFM. I realize that 90% exposure for white is higher than some people would expose S-LOG, but for this test I wanted to be consistent between all four shots. None of the whites are blown out in any of the shots.

Conclusions:

As expected, the camera looks horrible when no Picture Profile is selected. Anyone who shoots without using a good PP or S-LOG is clearly not using the camera to it's full capabilities.

The normal S-LOG is mode is washed out and will require grading (that's what S-LOG is supposed to look like) but that is not my preferred workflow. I prefer not to grade if I can avoid it. However, if you prefer to grade, then you can't beat S-LOG for keeping all your options open to you in post.

I feel that the V-LOG profile I created was successful at providing better contrast and better shadows than Vortex-A with about the same amount of saturation and sharpness. Maybe too much saturation? I purposely chose a subject that had a lot of color so further testing will be needed to see how it works on faces and other subjects with less intense colors.

vortexmedia.com/DVD_F3.html

Doug

It is over saturated, but that is the purpose of a grading test. It is to see how mush you can push it to see if it can hold.

Doug,
Thanks for the test but on first glance I can't tell too much from that image. Id lov e to see the same PP's with a someone sitting next to a window.

So would I.

Here is another series of test shots using the new picture profile version of S-LOG. Read the Vimeo description if you want to know the details.

Sony PMW-F3 Picture Profile with S-LOG testing - PART 2 on Vimeo

Interesting. Your Vortex-Q profile is very nice, massive improvement over the standard no PP F3 which really is quite shocking.

I think all the Log profiles are over exposed. The log curve uses a lot of compression/data reduction above 70% and sticking white at 90 is putting a lot of the image up into the compressed range giving a somewhat strange look. The S-Log at 70 looks to have the best DR (as expected), but as we are looking at Log in a REC-709 space it's hard to tell as the highlights are severely squashed.

I think if your going to use the Log curve your still going to have to expose well to the left (White at 70) to keep the majority of the image in the more linear parts of the curve. This means a heavy grade is still necessary, in which case you may as well try to retain as much data as possible and thus stick with the standard curve. Once I get hold of 1.4 I'll have a play, but I think that possibly the only useful thing might be to adding some extra saturation.

I've been playing with the F65 and the new S-Log2 curve. What's amusing is that on the F65, S-Log2 is a LUT! If you take the 16 bit RAW output and look at that without a LUT, for a normal exposure all you get is a near black image with just a few highlights visible. So to make on-set monitoring possible the output is converted to S-Log2 which is even more severe than S-Log and S-Log2 is regarded as a viewing LUT!

Hi Alister, thanks for the comments. I don't disagree with you that the curtains are overexposed in every shot except the last one. That was pretty much the purpose of the test, to see how a little over-exposure in the background would look with the various gammas when I tried to keep the exposure on the face and chart as consistent as possible. In other words, how much contrast can I get away with and still have a decent shot? The final S-LOG shot is the only one where I set the white chip on the chart at 70%.

My goal is to find a way to use the higher dynamic range of S-LOG, but still not have to grade. Maybe it can't be done, but that's my goal. Some people like to grade in post, but my goal has always been to grade in camera and get a nice finished look right then and there. Clients like to see it on the monitor, I don't have to spend time grading (a skill I am not good at and a chore I find extremely boring!!), I don't have to wait for renders, and I don't have a whole other set of files to wrangle.

And if I can use S-LOG bu still avoid grading -- then there's no reason I can't record to SxS cards and not have to bother with an external recorder. On the other hand, if you're going to grade, then I think just about everyone would agree that an external recorder with at least 10bit 4:2:2 capability is mandatory.

Other people may want to grade in post, and I respect that workflow, it's just not the way I want to work. Yup, that's my broadcast roots showing through. I am a TV guy. Guilty.

In my opinion, if you underexpose anything to the point (S-LOG or not) where whites are only hitting 68%, then of course highlights are going to be protected, but then you're absolutely going to have to grade, too. To me, 32% headroom on every shot seems like a waste of DR when only a few shots here and there will really need it. That's 1/3 of my exposure with nothing in it except for the occassional specular highlight. it just makes no sense to me to be so conservative and then have to grade every single frame because I was conservative. I'd never record audio that way, so why record light that way?

My holy grail is a PP with good dynamic range, nice highlight handling, good saturation, the right amount of sharpness, the correct white balance, blacks that touch 0%, and no grading necessary. The new Picture Profile version of S-LOG allows me to come very close to my goal, but is it any better than the cine gammas? That is the question I am attempting to answer now.

One thing I have found is that it is challenging to set up a test that really tells me anything meaningful. For example, in the case of this test with the mannequin and curtains, I had to dim my lights on the chart and face down to about 20% just to reach the point where I could get the curtains to look too hot. If this was a real shoot, I could have raised my lightst to 50% and thus kept the curtains in perfect control. In other words, in order to see what S-LOG might do for me, I had to paint myself into a shooting situation that I could easily have solved in another way -- just add a little light by turning a knob.

Doug,
Thanks for the explanation as I could not understand what you were up to until reading it. I look forward to seeing how this compares to cine gammas or even to 709 with a well adjusted knee, gamma and black.
I'd be thrilled if you came up with something closer to an Alexa in 709.

I do have to say though that this dream of being able to post with no grading at all seems either illusory or ultimately just sloppy to me. I've been shooting 709 most of my life and always try to get the best picture I can on set, often with a good tech painting each shot. Nevertheless a well adjusted final print always could use grading to some extent (especially whenever you are outside as its hard to judge a monitor.) I just looked at a show the director proudly told me didn't need any grading. It was quite well shot, but I wouldn't let it out of my kitchen without some obvious adjustments. Moreover I think its absolutely impossible to come up with a single profile that would work for every shot.

Sorry you hate taking the time to grade. I love it and have gotten into it professionally because I just couldn't stand seeing how uneven my own shows looked after my clients clumsy editorial. They just never reached their full potential. Of course i've worked with directors who can't stand to wait for lighting either. Good work always takes some time and effort.

Ultimately you should test with a real person because flesh tones are the first to suffer if there's any compression in that range. Also I suggest opening the windows and use what's outside for your overexposure test as the colors and gradations there will also tell you a lot more about your highlights than a white curtain.


Lenny Levy

I do have to say though that this dream of being able to post with no grading at all seems either illusory or ultimately just sloppy to me.

I'd say it's just the opposite of sloppy. Working hard to get as perfect an in-camera picture as possible (white balance, exposure, black levels, color, detail, etc.) takes more effort at the time of shooting and is anything but sloppy. I'd say shooting with S-LOG, where you basically just under-expose everything, have a couple of crude white balance options, and no other picture profile settings is the epitome of being sloppy. It's the classic "fix it in post" way of working that I dislike.

I already know it is possible to get a great looking picture straight out of the camera because I've been doing exactly that with dozens of cameras (including the F3) for over 30 years. Major broadcasters, especially live sports do it every single day. It is not difficult. It just takes some skill and attention to detail.

My goal is not to see if I can get a decent final image straight out of the F3, I know that is possible, my goal is to get a little more dynamic range by using the very best combination of settings and techniques. Nothing wrong with that. If I had 12 stops, I'd want 14. If I had 14 I'd want 16. But the trade offs of using S-LOG have not proven worth it yet to me. To someone else is might be and I wouldn't try to talk them out of it, but it's not for me at this stage.

BTW, I have not seen your work, so don't take this personally, but a lot of people who THINK they can grade are actually really, really bad at it. Just as there are people who are really, really bad at shooting.

We can agree on one thing you said, "Good work always requires some time and effort". True. I just prefer to apply that time and effort in the field, and not sitting on my ass at a computer. I am a cameraman, DP, cinemagotgrapher, whatever you want to label me, but I am not a colorist and don't want to be. And I don't work on productions with a whole team of specialists who will do it for me later in the workflow. That isn't reality in the world most of us work in.

I guess we have two different approaches to get to the same destination, but please don't say that it can't be done without grading. That is nonsense.

Doug,
I don't mean to accuse you of sloppiness. I also try to be extremely careful while shooting to get a picture as close to perfect as I can. That's the way most people I'm friends with in San Francisco have been shooting video for years. But my experience is also that when you string together a whole of show of shots that looked "perfect" in the field they always need some finessing to actually match and flow together smoothly. If your stuff doesn't need it more power to you, but its atypical at best. My background in addition to shooting and being a gaffer was that I used to time film negative, so I'm very picky.

I agree that many editors are terrible at grading but the more typical problem in my experience is that they accept at face value decently shot footage, don't see matching problems and don't make many simple corrections that could produce a more beautiful and even result. Moreover I don't think you could come up with a single PP that would work for every shot but I assume you realize that already.

Re: shooting sLog: I don't think that the idea behind shooting sLog is be sloppy and not care about your exposures any more than it would be shooting film or a Red. In fact if you were using a DIT and viewing LUT's on set you could be as careful as shooting 709 w a paint box. But you would need to give up a lot of final control to post and that is an issue on a lower budget shoot. I'm not sold on Slog for my clients because many are loath to get into a lot of color correction also. I'm trying to come up with some pretty simple filter packs they can use to get in the ballpark. In the same spirit I am interested in what you come up with as far as a straight out of the camera look.

Leonard. don't worry I didn't think you were calling me sloppy.

It would be quite arrogant of me to think that all my footage was perfect and didn't occasionally need some correcting in post. It certainly does. But I make a distinction between the hardcore grading that is necessary and part of the workflow when shooting S-LOG (or some other flat look) -- and making an occasional tweak to fix something that wasn't quite right. There's a difference between grading and just touching stuff up a little when necessary.

I don't agree that is isn't possible to create a PP that covers almost everything. I don't like to change PP's on a shot by shot basis or project by project basis, and maybe that is why my footage is consistent and doesn't require a whole bunch of massaging in post? For the past 4.5 years I've been using just one PP with my EX1 and EX3; basically only PP with my F800 although it has evolved a little; and I mostly use one PP with the F3, but that one PP keeps evolving too. Eventually I know I will settle on one PP for the F3 that I will use for almost everything I shoot. I guarantee it.

I think that there will be two different "markets" for video cameras going forward:

1) Those operators who work with expert colorists, and

2) Those who want to set their exact look before they shoot and only do minimal tweaking in post.

I'm in category 2. That's why a new camera like the Blackmagic isn't for me. I don't believe that it has any Picture Profiles (or scene files) that can be manipulated to give you the look you want. My impression is that it shoots flat and that's why they bundle the coloring software with it, so it can be expertly graded afterwards.

An expert colorist can make such footage look great, but anything less than expert grading looks incredibly fake to me.

I would like more dynamic range, though. That's why I'm following Doug's S-Log Picture Profile experiments with such keen interest. It will influence (for me) whether the next purchase is F3, C300 or the new FS700.

Doug, I'm wondering what you've been doing to the sLog to get the new look. I'm guessing mainly raise the gamma and the black stretch then add sat?
Does it respond in a more linear way to gamma changes than cinegamma which gets quite weird.

I'm definitely interested in your experiments Doug and of course once I get V1.4 I will be trying my own tests, it has to be done after all.

But I do have to wonder if it is really possible to create an good in camera look that has 13 stops of DR? This not a reflection on the way you shoot Doug, just wondering if it really is asking for too much.

The problem of course being that if you take 13 stops and squash it in to the typical 7 stops that most TV's and monitors can deal with, it will look flat and it will almost certainly look un-natural as you are compressing the image. The issue with using a Log curve to do this is that the highlights are compressed, with S-Log everything above about 60% is getting quite strongly compresses and above 75% very highly compressed. Compare that to a cinegamma where the compression doesn't really start to get significant until you get to about 80% and on paper at least that suggests that with the log curve your going to struggle to get skin tones to look natural and bright scenes are going to look very flat.

While you can add in some negative black gamma to make the image look more contrasty, this isn't going to change the highlight performance and with no other way to modify the top end of the curve your kind of stuck.
Anyway, perhaps you'll prove me wrong Doug, but I'm not convinced you'll get a useful benefit using the log curve for your way of working. I think that the cinegammas are a good compromise between extra dynamic range over standard without the image washing out.

If you do choose to shoot log and grade, the advantage you (or the colourist) has is to be able to selectively work on parts of the image, so you can just bring the highlights down while leaving everything else intact, which is something that just can't be done in camera, not yet at least.

Alister,
I'm curious why it is easier to spread out all 13 stops in post (back to 709) than in the camera itself. In my grading experiments with Slog I've been first de-logging using a curve which by itself would push the highlights into over exposure , then I'm adding a shadow highlight filter to additionally compress the highlights ( and also to finesse the shadows but that's less in need).

So technically why is it so much harder to achieve in camera? It would certainly be difficult to get the balance exactly right on set and maybe more dangerous. I assume that's kind of like what the cine gamma does already but not as well.

The problem is that the settings available in the F3 don't allow you to make any changes to the shape of the S-Log curve other than a bit of black stretch which only raises or lowers the bottom of the curve. So your stuck with the same highlight handling.

In post you have much finer control over which parts of the image you adjust and by how much. A proper grading tool can work on very specific tonal ranges giving you much greater control than you could ever have or perhaps want on a camera. One issue is that if you start adjusting specific ranges relative to the others within the same image is that it can be very hard to un-pick that look if you later decide you don't like it. For me what I want is a neutral image so I can pick my look in post.
I'm working with F65's at the moment that have 16Bit linear recording and it's just staggering what you can pull out of a shot that is so unbelievably over exposed it looks almost totally white. As the recording is linear there is no highlight compression. As it's 16bit one stop has over 4000 grey levels, so even if it is so overexposed that the entire scene is in the top one stop, you still have 4 times as much brightness information in that one stop than 10 bit S-Log has in it's entire range.

Thanks,
So if I'm understanding you right there is no inherent technical reason you couldn't manipulate or paint the SLog DR in camera even to an 8bit recording, but our you're suggesting 2 reasons against it.

1- Its just hard to do in camera as even when it becomes another gamma in the new firmware you just don't have that many parameters available to control in the F3.
I assume though that a good 3D LUT made with sophisticated software would theoretically be able to do that. Of course the F3 doesn't accept 3D LUT's so you'd need to record to something else.

2. But the 2nd objection is that even if you could record a sophisticated LUT then the curve would have so much compression in very specific parts of the curve that you would really be stuck with it and have very little ability to change it in post. I'm guessing less ability than you currently have with 709 or cinegamma?

Makes sense to me. Thanks

Thanks once again Alister,

So if I'm understanding you right there is no inherent technical reason you couldn't manipulate or paint the SLog DR in camera even to an 8bit recording, but you're suggesting 2 reasons against it.

1- Its just hard to do in camera as even when it becomes another gamma in the new firmware you just don't have that many parameters available to control in the F3.
I assume though that a good 3D LUT made with sophisticated software might theoretically be able to do that though. Of course the F3 doesn't accept 3D LUT's so you'd need to record to something else.

2. But the 2nd objection is that even if you could record a sophisticated LUT then the curve would have so much compression in very specific parts of the curve that you would really be stuck with it and have very little ability to change it in post. I'm guessing less ability than you currently have with 709 or cinegamma?

Makes sense to me, although I am also very interested to see what Doug comes up with. Maybe you can get something that's halfway there, similar to the Canon log curve.

Here's some excerpts from a two-camera interview that we shot yesterday using the new 1.4 firmware. Sorry, couldn't work a window into the shot. :-(

Sony PMW-F3 Picture Profile Test on Vimeo

Very nice Doug, not just the gamma but all your work on it. very lovely. You didn't by any chance shoot any of it with other gammas just as a point of comparison.

Leonard, thanks for the compliment. Unfortunately there was no time on this shoot to test any other settings, and I think I'm pretty much through doing more testing anyway. I feel like I've found the right paint settings, exposure and white balance techniques, and a workflow that works for me. Time to stop fooling around trying to make tiny incremental improvements that will never even be noticed and get back to real work.

Nice looking stuff, Doug.

I know i'm not alone in being curious what the final settings were.