S-Log Sample, colored in Davinci

[Nate Weaver]

Used the Alexa Log-C LUT, and dialed down the gain since I shot without a viewing LUT, and was overexposed by S-Log standards. Of course nothing was clipping anyway, but I had to adjust that exposure.

Skintones and overall look are prettier than I can achieve without a LUT in FCP:

Farmers Insurance/ Marvel's The Avengers -- Suit Up -- Behind the scenes: University of Farmers - YouTube

[Douglas Villalba]

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver

Used the Alexa Log-C LUT, and dialed down the gain since I shot without a viewing LUT, and was overexposed by S-Log standards. Of course nothing was clipping anyway, but I had to adjust that exposure.

Skintones and overall look are prettier than I can achieve without a LUT in FCP:



Farmers Insurance/ Marvel's The Avengers -- Suit Up -- Behind the scenes: University of Farmers - YouTube

So you shot the behind the scene with an F3 with S-LOG?

[Nate Weaver]

Originally Posted by Douglas Villalba

So you shot the behind the scene with an F3 with S-LOG?

Yes. To XDCAM.

[Michael Power]

The spot's being shot with Alexas and you're shooting BTS with an F3 with S Log? Interesting to compare footage side by side. Anyway, it looks like fun kooky shoot. Those Coppolas have great genes.

Sorry to be naive, but is Alexa Log C LUT installed in F3 picture profiles? So you shoot to SXS cards using this profile? Then it was graded in Resolve?

All handheld shooting with what kind of rig? Shooting with zoom lenses?

[Nate Weaver]

Originally Posted by Michael Power

Sorry to be naive, but is Alexa Log C LUT installed in F3 picture profiles? So you shoot to SXS cards using this profile? Then it was graded in Resolve?

Sorry, no, the Alexa LUT is used to "decode" in Resolve. There are no easily obtainable S-Log LUTs avail for Resolve, so I used the built in ones for Alexa. Looks fantastic.

I shot without a LUT, monitoring and exposing with the flat image. I goofed a bit, and exposed it hotter than it's meant to be. Still tons of wiggle room to fix, as you can see in the video. When I talked about "gain" above, meant image gain in Resolve, not in camera.

Originally Posted by Michael Power

All handheld shooting with what kind of rig? Shooting with zoom lenses?

Mostly handheld. Element Technica baseplate + CAS Spidergrips. Red 18-50 & 50-150 zooms.

[Alister Chapman]

You can save the F3's internal LUT's to an SxS card (in the "others" menu) and you should then be able to load those LUT's into resolve. Not sure what LUT's resolve supports but the .ce2 files the F3 produces are pretty standard. As they are text files they are easy enough to copy into the appropriate wrapper.

[Michael Power]

I'd been planning to buy the S Log for my F3 since I shoot a lot of documentary work where you can't control the lighting (there's also the killer outdoor Australian light, so unforgiving, much like southern Cal) but was trying to decide whether to shoot to the SxS cards to get the extra stop or invest in a separate recorder.

Your work with the F3 is the best and most imaginative I've seen so far, judging from the clips on your website. Or are some shot with other cameras? And you grade with Resolve mostly?

Michael

[Nate Weaver]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

You can save the F3's internal LUT's to an SxS card (in the "others" menu) and you should then be able to load those LUT's into resolve. Not sure what LUT's resolve supports but the .ce2 files the F3 produces are pretty standard. As they are text files they are easy enough to copy into the appropriate wrapper.

Allister,

The ce2 files are a group of 5 LUTs packaged together for the benefit of the CVP editor. Proprietary, from what I can tell.

The individual .lut files the CVP editor and Sony cameras use are not directly usable in Resolve, or at the very least, I can't get them to recognize and I've had success with other format LUTs. I'm sure they can be converted for use, as you're right, they're very simple 1D LUTs, but I haven't found the method yet in my maybe 2 hours of playing.

Regardless, if you shoot and expose to the Sony in-camera LUTs, the Alexa LUT more or less keeps the same exposure, and along the way adds a very refined s-curve contrast to the image along with nice saturation and blowouts, in my opinion.

[Steve Kalle]

Anyone know if you can easily load the Alexa LUT into the HDLink?

[Alister Chapman]

Anyone tried this: Mac App Store - LUT Translator

Say's it supports Sony SRW LUT's, which should be .ce2 LUT's.

All we need initially is for someone to convert the 5 F3 LUT's to something a bit more common, then you could use LUT Buddy (free) to convert to other standards.

[Leonard Levy]

I'm curious, do you think this really would have looked a whole lot different if you had shot it without sLog?
Any easier to shoot or edit?
I'm guessing that you were the editor also and thus didn't have to convince someone to shoot in SLog and take the time to grade.
I'm trying to figure out where I can suggest to clients that they shoot with sLog and generally what I hear is - "If I have the time to do all that grading I can afford to shoot with an Alexa". I suspect on a shoot like this my clients would choose the marginal quality drop of cine gamma or 709 over the time added in grading.

Its not a criticism , I just see a lot of example of sLog on the boards that don't look much different to what I can get without it and without the added hassle.

[Douglas Villalba]

So mush has been said about the ability of S LOG handling highlight that the real used has being ignore.
Having too mush light has never been a problem, close the lens or stick an ND filter and you are set. The problem is latitude from highs to lows and that is where the SLOG excels compare to non SLOG.
It is hard to tell if you don't have two exactly identical clips one with and one without SLOG.
I usually look for the transition of shades in the lows to tell the difference.

[Steve Kalle]

Grading S-Log is SOOO simple and easy that any Pro NLE can handle it - you don't need Lustre or Resolve to do it. I don't understand the 'hassle' that people talk about. Aside from Doug, doesn't everyone else normally apply some sort of finishing touches to their footage when editing? If going to broadcast or DVD, you absolutely must get everything in check, which means applying an effect or two.

Maybe tell clients who expect a picture perfect image on their monitor during production that they need to include room in the budget for a DIT.

Then again, isn't it the DP's role to decide when and when not to shoot in S-Log? If you have a low-con scene, then S-Log won't add much.

[Leonard Levy]

I don't know about you but in my world I can't simple tell a client he has to use sLog because I think it would be better. I agree that everything should be graded to some extent but many people like to do as little as possible. I don't entirely get it to be honest as I love to grade my own stuff and can't imagine not correcting everything 709 nor not.

[Steve Kalle]

Originally Posted by Leonard Levy

I don't entirely get it to be honest as I love to grade my own stuff and can't imagine not correcting everything 709 nor not.

I agree 100%.

I think the problem is that most of these people have been in the industry for years and still think of 'grading' as something that costs <$1000/hr on a Resolve, Scratch, Lustre, etc. It is so simple and easy to do now with inexpensive computers and a $5k Flanders Grade 1 monitor or $3k Sony OLED.

If a client doesn't want to grade, then why bother even bringing it up? Its not our job to teach these people about the benefits of one camera's tech. Also, you can't expect to send a 14 stop image to broadcast either so to utilize the full benefits of S-Log mean it needs to be graded.