since you can’t recognize it, then i suppose i haven’t. But that shouldn’t stop you from being capable from working. it’s not like we all have to apply the exact same rules. i understand what you are doing with your technique preferences, and i support you.
Is my exposure off? Noisy FX9 in SLOG3
- Thread starter seanadl
- Start date
since you can’t recognize it, then i suppose i haven’t. But that shouldn’t stop you from being capable from working. it’s not like we all have to apply the exact same rules. i understand what you are doing with your technique preferences, and i support you.
NorBro
Major Contributor
DJ, another DVXuser and I think that dude is a former member who got banned and is just trolling now under a different name...same strange personality, same random peculiar commenting on every thread...don't waste your time, lol.
I’m happy to discuss facts. if there is anything that i have posted that is wrong, let’s discuss it, but arbitrarily saying i am trolling is nothing more than trolling unfortunately.
NorBro
Major Contributor
That's the same thing the other guy once said. lol [facepalm]
I’m ok with that. unless i am any more wrong.
you have more than 11K posts, so i am trying to work along side you here.
Also, i am primarily on maybe 4 threads, including this one, it is just that this forum is slow that you assume i am posting too much. if i comment on 10 threads over several weeks that is not much. And if i reply to good people like ahalpert, how is that bad?
Last edited:
Seanadi. A couple of points.
1 - It is good that you increased your exposure , but by how much, i.e. how did you decide where to set it on the IRE scale? That's what matters. Every false color pattern is different and where a person's skin tone should lie on the IRE scale could vary. Doug's method is designed to make that issue irrelevant.
2 - If you insist on sticking with slog , Changing your EI from 1000 to 800 is very minimal. If you still see noise , try going to 400 or even lower. On the A7siii I typically expose 1 1/2 stops over . You shouldn't need to do that on an FX9 but you could shoot at EI 200 and be perfectly fine unless you have material that's very bright. The more you overexpose and "print your image down " in post the cleaner your blacks will be though you will lose highlight lattitude . Foprtunately slog has so much headroom that you rarely need it in a controlled situatrion./
3- In post are you using a LUT ? If so its very important that its the last effect you apply . The LUT is only designed for a perfectly exposed image. If you are under or over you need to fix your exposure first then add the LUT . What LUT are you using?
Read Alister Chapman's posts about how to shoot slog correctly .
1 - It is good that you increased your exposure , but by how much, i.e. how did you decide where to set it on the IRE scale? That's what matters. Every false color pattern is different and where a person's skin tone should lie on the IRE scale could vary. Doug's method is designed to make that issue irrelevant.
2 - If you insist on sticking with slog , Changing your EI from 1000 to 800 is very minimal. If you still see noise , try going to 400 or even lower. On the A7siii I typically expose 1 1/2 stops over . You shouldn't need to do that on an FX9 but you could shoot at EI 200 and be perfectly fine unless you have material that's very bright. The more you overexpose and "print your image down " in post the cleaner your blacks will be though you will lose highlight lattitude . Foprtunately slog has so much headroom that you rarely need it in a controlled situatrion./
3- In post are you using a LUT ? If so its very important that its the last effect you apply . The LUT is only designed for a perfectly exposed image. If you are under or over you need to fix your exposure first then add the LUT . What LUT are you using?
Read Alister Chapman's posts about how to shoot slog correctly .
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Check. Thanks.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Good post, but I must disagree with this advice. The LUT is not the last effect. Exposure adjustments should be made on node #1. Then your choice of LUT needs to be applied on node #2. All secondary grading needs to come after the LUT, and that could involve anywhere from a couple of nodes to a dozen or more. I find a 4-node grade is usually my "norm".
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Good advice but very hard to keep quiet when nonsense is being posted. When people read the comments on a forum I think it is generally assumed the information is basically correct if there isn't some push back from other posters. So, in the big scheme of things, it is hard to just sit by the side let bad information go unchallenged. A forum that is dominated by rubes and wannabes will cause the true professionals to move on to other places. Ironically, he claims to be "saving" the forum by posting non-stop, but in reality, he is hastening its death through is pointless comments. That's kind of what happened at DVinfo, which is now geared towards hobbyists. But with all that said, I will try not to get trolled as often.
drboffa
Well-known member
UNLESS you are using LUTs that have exposure offsets—such as Alister's VENICE look LUTs. I find his half-stop increment LUTs (from -3 to +3) to be excellent for bringing under/overexposed footage back into line. I think they're especially useful if you're just starting out with color grading and need a good base to work from.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Have you ever just tried adjusting the exposure with node 1 before the signal hits the LUT on node 2? I find it totally negates the need for having a ton of exposure offset LUTs for every LUT in my quiver. The offset LUTs are never a perfect fit anyway and some exposure adjustment is almost always needed. Way easier just to adjust exposure with a node before it hits the LUT. Thoughts? Have you tried that approach before?
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Out of curiosity, how many different LUTs do you commonly use?
I have taken to using the approach you describe, albeit in FCP. FCP automatically applies the standard LUT to footage with appropriate metadata (eg FS7 slog3 footage, but not A7SIII slog3 footage, which doesn't tell the program what it is, I suppose). But if the footage requires an exposure shift, I turn off the automatic LUT application (which would, by design, be the first adjustment made to the footage). Then I apply an exposure adjustment to the footage before putting on a LUT. And, as you said, I find that this negates the need for an exposure-offset LUT (although I've never tested a direct comparison between the two approaches)
I agree with Doug about adjusting exposure on the first node instead oif using an exposure adjusted LUT . That's the recommended procedure. Those LUT's are very useful in other circumstances, for example I use them in monitors or cameras when you can't use Cine EI , so I have them in all my monitors for use with the A7SIII.
RE: Whether the LUT should be 2nd or at the end is an interesting question Doug . You might be right. I can see some effects might work better if the full color and range is already applied, though my thinking was even after the exposure was adjusted you could do something that could limit you later say in a power window . I'm embarrassed to say I don't remember if I used to put it as the last Node or the 2nd since I've switched to color space transforms.
These kind of questions though are ones that indicate Doug's original suggestion for a beginner to just use S-cinetone could be a safer idea.
RE: Whether the LUT should be 2nd or at the end is an interesting question Doug . You might be right. I can see some effects might work better if the full color and range is already applied, though my thinking was even after the exposure was adjusted you could do something that could limit you later say in a power window . I'm embarrassed to say I don't remember if I used to put it as the last Node or the 2nd since I've switched to color space transforms.
These kind of questions though are ones that indicate Doug's original suggestion for a beginner to just use S-cinetone could be a safer idea.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
I have a couple for S-LOG3 and a couple for S-LOG2. I don't need any more than that. I would also never try to grade S-LOG in Premiere or FCP. They just don't have the tools you need, and the node workflow is so much faster and more efficient.
How much experience do you have with Resolve?
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Yes, much safer to use S-Cinetone. LOG seems easier if you alerady know what you are doing and have some training under your belt, but if you don't, it is full of pitfalls. The shooting scenario in this thread is exactly what Sony designed S-Cinetone to be used for. If you're not going to use S-Cinetone to shoot a human face in a studio with 100% controlled lighting, when would you ever use it?
drboffa
Well-known member
Yes, this is my usual workflow. Generally I do a WB on node 1, exposure correction on node 2, LUT on node 3, and then creative decisions and corrections in subsequent nodes. If the WB doesn't seem to be working under the LUT I will sometimes move that to a post-LUT node.
I do find that for severely underexposed shots the exposure compensated LUTs can be very helpful at times. Also even when using LUTs with exposure compensation I'm generally doing some initial exposure work underneath the LUT.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I tried resolve for a couple weeks 4 or 5 years ago when I was ditching premiere. It was buggy for me. I went to fcp and never looked back. I'm sure it's better now.
But I don't see myself leaving fcp for a couple reasons. For one thing, I don't think anything can beat the stability of fcp/Mac. And stability is really important to me. For another thing, fcp is super super fast for me to do all my most common basic tasks: shot selection, ordering and reordering, proxy workflow, reformat for vertical, etc. I love the magnetic timeline. I gather that resolve has matched a lot of that functionality, but I don't think it's matched all of it.
Color correction just happens to be a lower priority for the vast majority of what I edit because the grading demands are simple. Most often, I have to match the look of footage of an artwork to a TIFF provided by a photographwr. I can do all that I need to do in fcp. And a lot of the other stuff I edit isnt shot in slog3.
But I edited a wedding recently and it did occur to me that some of the grading would probably have been easier in resolve. It wasn't shot log, but there were some tricky mixed-color temp interiors where some of the sources were not full spectrum. But this was only the 5th wedding I've ever edited. If I edited more of them, it might change my priorities.
Or maybe I could have cut the wedding in fcp and graded it in resolve?
With regard to the LUTs you use, what are their different purposes? Like, is one for normal footage and one is for footage where the areas of interest are in the shadows or something?
drboffa
Well-known member
In my experience, nothing is faster than FCP for editing—so long as you're not doing anything too complicated AND you're not working collaboratively.
That said, Resolve blows FCP out of the water for color grading. And if you know how to use it you can be pretty damn fast editing with it, even if not quite as fast as in FCP.
That said, Resolve blows FCP out of the water for color grading. And if you know how to use it you can be pretty damn fast editing with it, even if not quite as fast as in FCP.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Here are the names of the LUTs I use 90% of the time as a base grade on node #2. They are just standard issue LUTs from Sony and Arri. There are some other S-LOG LUTs built into Resolve that I'll try sometimes if I have trouble with any footage, just to see what difference it makes. But these are my go-to LUTs
Slog3-S-_Gamut3.cine_to_s709_V200 (I think this was originally designed for Venice)
Arri Alexa LogC to REC709 (LogC and S-LOG3 are basically the same thing, so this Arri LUT works. I think it has slighly higher midtones)
From_Slog2SGumut_to_LC-709TypeA (a good starting point for when I'm using a camera that can do S-LOg2)
All of my footage, whether S-LOG, RAW, or REC709 (everything benefits from grading) goes through Resolve where I pick and choose the takes , b-roll, etc. that I want to use in my edit. I only grade and trim those "selects". I then export that footage as individual stand-alone ProRes files. Easy to do in Resolve. Those ProRes files are then used as my raw footage for editing in Premiere. I love doing the grading first before editing so that I can just focus on grading at that stage of the workflow and seeing what works and what doesn't. Also, if I need to show a work in progress to a client, all the footage is already graded and looking its best even if the edit isn't done. Also, any of the ProRes b-roll clips can be repurposed and sold as stock footage with no additional work except adding metadata.
BTW, I don't know what trouble you had with Resolve before but it is 99.9% rock solid for me and very rarely ever crashes. And when it does, I've never lost any work.
Last edited: