Try this when shooting S-LOG 3 on Sony cameras

[Andrew Reid]

One of the most common problems with S-LOG 3 is that it's very counter-intuitive to expose it! Harv Video/Audio Stuff on YouTube says he is getting far better results with far less noise in the shadows with his technique, shown in the video above.

I highly recommend trying it yourself.

Read the full article

[webrunner5]

That is pretty much what Wolfcrow says about the SLog2 on the A7s. At around 32 minutes is where he starts taking about His way to go at it, and it is to expose 3 stops over. Now I have never used SLog3 so not sure about that, but it seems like the same scenario.

https://wolfcrow.com/blog/how-to-expose-and-grade-s-log2-for-the-sony-a7s/

[Shirozina]

So basically a near ETTR exposure  - horrible banding / colour clipping around the light clouds towards the top right of the frame. the 8bit 4.2.0 100mps internal codec is just not up to this kind of low contrast scene. You would probably get away with it shooting to an ext recorder in 4.2.2 with a less compressed codec but to capture a low contrast scene like this internally you need to pick a more contrasty profile to spread your tones across more of the image data range.

[Mark Romero 2]

26 minutes ago, Shirozina said:

So basically a near ETTR exposure  - horrible banding / colour clipping around the light clouds towards the top right of the frame. the 8bit 4.2.0 100mps internal codec is just not up to this kind of low contrast scene. You would probably get away with it shooting to an ext recorder in 4.2.2 with a less compressed codec but to capture a low contrast scene like this internally you need to pick a more contrasty profile to spread your tones across more of the image data range.

Agree that I probably wouldn't use SLOG for such an overcast scene.

[Deadcode]

13 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

One of the most common problems with S-LOG 3 is that it's very counter-intuitive to expose it! Harv Video/Audio Stuff on YouTube says he is getting far better results with far less noise in the shadows with his technique, shown in the video above.

I highly recommend trying it yourself.

Read the full article

I can feel a hint of sarcasm in the article :)

"i dont use it myself, but you should try it, and after you get tired how problematic it is... use my profile" :D nice one!

[no_connection]

It should be no surprise that ISO 1600 is more noisy than ISO 200. And by exposing two stops over and push it back the noise is kinda the same.

So try exposing it like you would normally with normal profile at ISO100 then flip to s-log3 and native ISO 1600, check for clipping and done.

[Andrew Reid]

Of course you don't have that problem with EOSHD Pro LOG at ISO 200 (*hint hint*)

[kye]

I did notice one thing in the video that got me thinking.  In the final shot where he overexposes the most and clips some sky detail the histogram is only showing data levels perhaps at 70% of full values.  That seems strange to me - why wouldn't you take 100% exposure on the sensor and translate that to 100% brightness in the output file?  It would give you more bit depth to play with - the whole point of ETTR I thought.

Unless there's some aspect of S-LOG that needs to be calibrated between cameras, with other cameras having greater dynamic range perhaps?

It just struck me as odd..

[Shirozina]

The whole concept of ISO and 'exposure' don't apply to LOG - they are leftovers from stills profiles. ISO for instance is measured at a sensitivity in the middle of the response curve which in a still or non log picture profile is flat but in a LOG profile it's highly elevated so '1600' ISO is meaningless as it describes a point on a highly elevated curve. Same with exposure meters which are designed to zero on mid grey on a stills type response curve when on a LOG curve it's again highly elevated. To expose LOG properly you need scopes.

[Deadcode]

1 hour ago, kye said:

I did notice one thing in the video that got me thinking.  In the final shot where he overexposes the most and clips some sky detail the histogram is only showing data levels perhaps at 70% of full values.  That seems strange to me - why wouldn't you take 100% exposure on the sensor and translate that to 100% brightness in the output file?  It would give you more bit depth to play with - the whole point of ETTR I thought.

Unless there's some aspect of S-LOG that needs to be calibrated between cameras, with other cameras having greater dynamic range perhaps?

It just struck me as odd..

Exactly.

The clipping point for SLOG2 is 107%

The clipping point for SLOG3 is 93% with consumer cameras

They both represents exactly the same dynamic range.

With professional cameras SLOG3 can go up to 109%.

Technically the dynamic range for most of Sony's SLOG2/3 capable consumer cameras are little above 13EV

The SLOG3 curve was created to handle around 16EV dynamic range if used for the whole range.

[Dustin]

So when shooting in slog 2 your zebras need to change from 70 +\-5 to 100 +\-5? @Andrew Reid does this apply to your ProLog S, s-log 2 based profile? I’ve really been loving the Pro Log Cinema profile for easy grading and exposing.

[Deadcode]

8 minutes ago, Dustin said:

So when shooting in slog 2 your zebras need to change from 70 +\-5 to 100 +\-5? @Andrew Reid does this apply to your ProLog S, s-log 2 based profile? I’ve really been loving the Pro Log Cinema profile for easy grading and exposing.

It depends on what you are exposing to.

70% is fine for skintones, just like wolfcrow said

If you are shooting ETTR then yes 105+% is the best choice

Andrew just changed the color response but not the gamma curve. (If he doesent changed the black gamma curve settings for slog2)

 

[Trek of Joy]

I haven't had the a7III for very long, but HLG seems to offer all the DR benefits of SLOG without the headaches. There's an amazing amount of latitude in HLG files, it responds well to pushing the colors around, and it seems to have more detail as well.

Chris

[webrunner5]

I find this video is pretty interesting about the difference of Sony HLG and SLog3.

 

[kye]

2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I find this video is pretty interesting about the difference of Sony HLG and SLog3.

 

Sorry but that video is awful - I had to stop watching before the finish.

I believe that he likes HLG better than SLOG, and he may well be right about it, but the fact he uses film-emulation LUTs and then jumps around all the time between controls that weren't set to default settings is very strange.  Plus his comment about "SLOG gives you purple shadows and you can't do anything about that" indicates that either he doesn't understand the basics of using the Lift wheel or the Curves panel, or the fact that the tint is likely coming from the film emulation LUTs, but either way, no-one should be taking grading and colour advice from someone who can't add green in the shadows!!

I am intrigued to learn more about the HLG profile though, because it seems like it might be how to get high DR but avoid the low bit-depth in colour information issue (which is the downside of 8-bit log profiles).

[webrunner5]

Well I don't know crap about HDR either. But it seemed like a hell of a lot easier way to get a decent grade in a hell of a lot less time and struggle. Not everyone on here is some Wiz kid at editing or grading. And shooting in Slog, especially on cameras that you Have to shoot @ 1600 , 3200 ISO, and having to use ND filters, hell who wants that if you can avoid it.

Sure I may not use that old Kodak film stock LuT either, but I learned something I didn't know about. Any knowledge is better than nothing. I think I are smater now I saw theis veedeoo.

 

[kye]

51 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Well I don't know crap about HDR either. But it seemed like a hell of a lot easier way to get a decent grade in a hell of a lot less time and struggle. Not everyone on here is some Wiz kid at editing or grading. And shooting in Slog, especially on cameras that you Have to shoot @ 1600 , 3200 ISO, and having to use ND filters, hell who wants that if you can avoid it.

Sure I may not use that old Kodak film stock LuT either, but I learned something I didn't know about. Any knowledge is better than nothing. I think I are smater now I saw theis veedeoo.

 

I picked up a few things too, but I tried your line of reasoning at liftgammagain and got slammed for it.  The problem with watching people who don't know how to grade is that for every piece of information you pick up that will help you in the future, you're risking picking up other information that will hurt you, either in bad practices or in a lack of understanding of what is going on, and you won't be able to tell which is which.  
As an example, think about how many YT colour grading videos talk about how to use LUTs, and then think about how many of them tell you that LUTs clip the data, and then think about how many talk about HOW luts work and WHEN not to use them.

This is one of the reasons that I find the Juan Melara grading videos such a revelation - almost every sentence in his videos contains information that would take you hours or days of watching YT videos to find in those "buy my LUT" colour grading videos, but on top of that he presents the information in such a way that it builds an understanding of how to link techniques together in simple but powerful ways.

The way I see it is that colour grading is the same as shooting - it takes 10% equipment and 90% skill to get a great result.  I've also noticed that the more skilled the colourist, the more that the grade is about using the basic tools well but knowing exactly what to do with them.

After spending dozens of hours watching YT colour grading videos, buying multiple paid colour grading courses, site subscriptions, and hundreds of hours of fiddling in Resolve over a dozen or more camera tests and a dozen more real projects trying to match multiple cameras, I learned that if you shoot it right, the less I do in post the better it looks.  
I think I am at the point now where my adjustments do more good than harm, and much of that is training my eye, but I think I might have gotten there a lot faster without watching all those YT videos of people who blindly apply LUTs and twiddle the knobs until their "how to make your footage CINEMATIC" video is ready for upload.

[webrunner5]

Well I can't argue with your logic. And yeah getting it in camera IS the way to go. But most cameras that can really look pretty damn good output wise are not Point N Shoots, and most are going to have a Log or a damn harsh Slog 2, 3 Log in them and that is why you justified the purchase of it.

And your right the more I seem to do the worse it gets. So for the average stuff I do, and it is pretty average trust me, gulp, I would kill to just mow, blow, and go as they say in the grass cutting business.

So I am not against trying what he is trying. But I don't use FCP so I will have to think even harder LoL. It all is damn confusing for someone my age that really never did much editing with video. And this stuff is coming out faster than I can even wrap my head around, let alone master doing it.

liftgammagain people are well, sort of, ehh, picky! Everything is sort of no no no.

 

[kye]

3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Well I can't argue with your logic. And yeah getting it in camera IS the way to go. But most cameras that can really look pretty damn good output wise are not Point N Shoots, and most are going to have a Log or a damn harsh Slog 2, 3 Log in them and that is why you justified the purchase of it.

And your right the more I seem to do the worse it gets. So for the average stuff I do, and it is pretty average trust me, gulp, I would kill to just mow, blow, and go as they say in the grass cutting business.

So I am not against trying what he is trying. But I don't use FCP so I will have to think even harder LoL. It all is damn confusing for someone my age that really never did much editing with video. And this stuff is coming out faster than I can even wrap my head around, let alone master doing it.

liftgammagain people are well, sort of, ehh, picky! Everything is sort of no no no.

LOL, yeah, I'm with you.

I think I find myself in a few situations, 1) taking things that are well shot and making them lovely, 2) taking things that weren't well shot and trying to make them look passable, and 3) trying to work out how to not make the same mistakes next time I shoot so I don't have as difficult a time in post!!

I've spent a lot of time in grading trying to learn how to fix things, for example turning this GoPro and iPhone footage at a club from this:

to this...

which doesn't look like it's day turning to night, or that some of it is shot in LOG, or that some of it was from another planet with a green sun, etc ???

I think I'm better at turning problems into usable footage than I am in taking nice to brilliant, but I sure know how to dive deep into the Resolve panels for things like "why does the shadow pixellation have strange purple and orange bands and how do I get rid of them?"

I guess it depends on what your objectives are, learning how to get by is ok if that's all you want, but if you want to go further then it's probably better to start with the pros

[webrunner5]

Well I guess that is another reason Smartphones are so damn popular. You have to admit, other than at night in dark areas, it is pretty damn hard to screw them up output wise, whether it is photos or videos. And even editing in iMovie is not super difficult. Now is it Filmic looking as hell, well probably not. But I don't think 4k and higher can even look filmic unless you are intentionally trying to make it look that way. Even Arri spent years to get 4K with the ALEXA SXT Plus to "look" like Film. And I think the original Arri Alexa Classic at "Only 2.8K" looked better, Creamier. The Alexa XT at 3.2K ehh was not so bad either LoL.

So heck I don't know what the answer is to be honest. We on here, well a lot on here, are trying to be a one man band, or at least doing stuff on the side if you work for a business that is into video. And it is nearly impossible to be good, let alone great at all aspects of video. That is why there is 200 people or more that work on a big time movie. They are all pretty damn good at their One specialty. And even then it takes them weeks, months to do it. How are we as a single person going to whip out some masterpiece in a week that is a Classic? Ain't happening I guess LoL.

I would argue that post production is Way more important on average than shooting the footage, other than Audio. And who is great at that other than you know who on here. ? And how many of us are great in post production? I bet it is a damn small number. Nearly an impossible task to be honest.?