Oldboy78 wrote: So i have started shooting in slog2 and i feel that to start grading you have to apply a curve to bring back colors and contrast and then apply saturation etc, the thing is that my videos get these normal colors or sometimes the color bleeds. Personally i want to get much out of the picture profile and have no idea what to do next. I saw that film convert has these extra functions that can enhance the grading process. I mainly edit and grade in sony vegas 13, yet my use of luts is limited using the impulze luts plug in which has almost no control over the lut, personally i cant even reduce the film grain in it since the plug in only applies the color grade.
Applying LUTs in DaVinci Resolve. You can apply a LUT for color work in DaVinci Resolve 12.5 as follows. First, download S-Log2 LUTs from the Sony website and save. Nov 30, 2016 - Links to a large number of free LUT's (Look Up Table) sets for Sony S-Log2 and S-Log3 video cameras. Film looks and exposure offsets.
And how are PP5 and PP6? Are they easier to grade? Any help would be appreciated. I have plenty of experience with Slog 2 from the Sony RX100 IV. I edit in Sony Vegas Pro and I use the Vison Color LUT plug-in. Just to be clear, that plug-in allows one to use anyone's LUT. You need a LUT to start, one that accurately converts to REC709 color.
The best options to do that I have found are: 1. Alistair Chapmans LUTs. They are based on the Slog 2 in the Sony A7s. They seem ok as a start. Once you 'plug in' the LUT you can then grade to achieve the look you want in Vegas (color wheels, white balance, etc.). An even better alternative is to use the free Sony Catalyst Browse.
That program ingests your Slog 2/Sgamut clips. It applies a Sony LUT to get them to REC709 so you can view them in normal color/contrast. The LUT is based on your actual camera (Sony knows!). You can do some correcting (WB, etc.) in there (say for one of your clips).
And here is the best part - you can export the color corrections you made along with the Sony REC709 LUT as your own LUT - customized to your camera. You can then plug-in that LUT you made in Sony Vegas Pro and apply it to all your clips. You can still individually alter each clip to taste in Vegas Pro. This is clearly the best method - Sony's LUT is up to date on the exact color science of the Sony RX100 IV Slog 2 and SGamut. And you can use it.
It will also deal with any overexposure you should employ in shooting Slog 2. Alistair Chapman's LUTs are specific to the degree of overexposure.
I have posted a few times before but in error posted to the camera forum so I'm starting as a newbie here. But not new to Sony video as i shot a lot with the EX1 a few years ago, Just moved to A7ii. Experimenting with S-Log2 as this is all I intend to shoot but I have two problems. FIRST I am going on week long remote desert shoot where I will not have computor to apply a LUT so I'm apprehensive about coming back with a bunch of bad footage. Until I feel more confident in this camera what non s-Log profile is recommended? SECONDLY (and more importantly to me) when I have applied the S-Log2 LUT to my footage in Resolve I get total blow-out. Like an almost white screen with the bottom at 50 IRE and the top about 6 inches above my monitor.
What's happening here/ Surely this is not right as training videos of applying LUTS give a fair image off the bat. I found the same thing when I did a couple of tests using the supplied slog 2 inversion LUT in Resolve. So just to get the footage passed on to the person that needed it I did a custom curve that looked pretty good on a calibrated monitor, and retained all the data in the waveform so it was all useable. I might look into it a bit more if I get time. You can also go into the 'ACES' working space. But that might be a bit much for you to delve into.
I rely on our colorists for guidance when it comes to screwing around with ACES settings in Resolve. Ran some tests (A7R2) on colour/tonescale charts under locked off conditions and cycled through each of the PP's just to see what they were doing technically, both on-camera and in Resolve's scopes. Interesting watching the histogram on the camera as it starts compressing the information from a standard tonescale into less and less bits as you roll through the PP's. What I'm starting to see is that for any (controlled?) lighting situation where there may not be extreme dynamic range you want to retain, it's probably better to stay well away from S-log2. Using Resolve's Slog2rec.709 1D lut shows massive 8-bit stepping in the histogram once it stretches out the range, and the image looks rather noisy compared to say the normal rec.709 (PP3/PP4) profiles or Cine profiles.
2c edit: I mentioned ACES earlier. If anyone's interested there's whitepapers & forums online that explain what ACES is. But here's a brief whitepaper that also talks about Sony's s-log (and ACES) as used in Vegas Pro (explained in Sony's own way, of course). There's other whitepapers on s-log and its variations if you search for them, it's been around for quite a while in Sony's pro/cine cameras. ANOTHER UPDATE. Did a lot of testing today and I now understand why the Sony S-Log2 in Resolve blows out.
It blows out because it expects the footage to be UNDER-EXPOSED as the A7 records when set to Programed Auto. It's not for ETTR! Set your A7 to fully auto and shoot PP7 S-Log2 and you will just how wrong the cameras exposure is.
The histogram on auto-exposure is like at 45%. This is just mental, but put the footage into Resolve and applying the Sony S=Log2 LUT and resultant exposure is spot on, but the benefits of shooting Log are gone. It's just like PP4. CWS - why your like PP3? Philip Bloom say PP2 for low light and PP4 for bright, I read yesterday of someone who prefers the PP2 'Still' setting for video. The tests I have done have drawn me towards PP6.
It would be nice IF THE SONY PEOPLE WHO DESIGNED AND CHOOSES THESE PROFILES TOLD US JUST WHAT SITUATION THEY WERE DESIGNED FOR. Just too many choices. I personally DO get befit from S-Log2 because of the wide altitude over exposure allowing a choice between noise and highlight detail depending on situation and the more natural colors.
The big down side is monitoring what you are getting. Mainly because I'm using it for in-house training videos, so sticking to one of the more technically correct tone-scale rendering profiles (PP3, PP4) makes it simpler for the various people using the camera to record reasonable video without making terribly bad exposure choices. Chose PP3 based on running exposure tests on grey-scale and Macbeth charts under basic internal lighting conditions, it seemed to reproduce the grey-scale more evenly visually than what Sony describes as the 'technically correct' PP4 setting for rec.709, which is a formulaic profile. I think they may have put a slight rolloff on top end, rather than clipping (theoretically what PP4 would do). But not certain as I deleted the test frames.