Is my exposure off? Noisy FX9 in SLOG3
- Thread starter seanadl
- Start date
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Yeah, sending an AAF from fcp for protools can be annoying, but pretty doable with a 3rd party plug-in.
sending an xml to premiere, however - total nightmare. I've only had to do it once and it was not pleasant
drboffa
Well-known member
Yeah forget about working across software. I mean collaborating in FCP across multiple computers or users. Sometimes it works, sometimes it's an absolute nightmare. Nowhere near reliable enough to make me comfortable.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Thanks - the first LUT you mentioned is the only one I use so far. That's interesting to know about arri logc.
I grade everything, but if the color is already in the right place and I don't want to use secondaries, then no one can convince me that fcp is at a grading disadvantage to anything else
I don't think the workflow you described would work for me because I usually have a very high ratio of selects to shots in the final video, and the work takes shape during editing. For example, as in this video I recently edited where I employed the reduction in exposure pre-LUT we were talking about: https://f.io/Nwb-z6-M
But this was literally a one-pass grade since i maintained exposure when i shot it and it's just one set-up.
Here's another quick montage video, but from a mixed lighting environment. I also shot it but was in a hurry, so the exposures and color balances were sloppier and thus the grading was more laborious. I'd probably be glad to grade this in Resolve, but again it started with an awful lot of selects and there's no way I'd wanna round-trip them. And how does Resolve handle speed ramps? I never made friends with them in Premiere, but in FCP they're a breeze, and an integral part of what I do for this client: https://f.io/Kljid9v1
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Oh that's interesting. I edit a project across multiple computers, and I just make sure all the media is with the library on the external drive that's getting passed around. (Usually not in the library itself, which I think causes more problems than it solves.) I don't think I've ever collaborated with someone else on an fcp project, but I had thought it would be easier than you said, so that's troubling
Do you know about speed ramping in resolve? I could never satisfactorily get it to work in Premiere, but it's a breeze and a great asset in fcp
NorBro
Major Contributor
I feel like I've been saying this for like 10 years now because everyone always seems to be confused by this (and rightfully so because Apple really messed up the language and process with this...made it more confusing than it needs to be), but if you consolidate everything into the library (or event or even a single project) then you don't need anything anywhere else. You just pass around the library icon (package) from drive to drive.
Having the files on an external drive is great too and for some it may be better, but consolidating all of the files into the library doesn't cause any problems; you just have to be immaculate at data management because once you consolidate everything into the library then you now have duplicate files in the library and on the external drive or desktop (which might be OKAY but you have to know that, understand).
And sometimes if you add a new file to your edit, it may only exist in the external location because you haven't consolidated it yet into the library, so that's when things can get messy because if you forget to do that and don't have the external drive or it's not on your desktop anymore (or another place) then it's not linked and missing.
Having the files on an external drive is great too and for some it may be better, but consolidating all of the files into the library doesn't cause any problems; you just have to be immaculate at data management because once you consolidate everything into the library then you now have duplicate files in the library and on the external drive or desktop (which might be OKAY but you have to know that, understand).
And sometimes if you add a new file to your edit, it may only exist in the external location because you haven't consolidated it yet into the library, so that's when things can get messy because if you forget to do that and don't have the external drive or it's not on your desktop anymore (or another place) then it's not linked and missing.
drboffa
Well-known member
I find speed ramping to work just fine in Resolve, with ONE exception (which I'll get to in a sec). Resolve offers the usual abilities to play with clip speed or multiple speeds within a clip, plus you can use curves with the keyframes to play with how smooth (or abrupt) you want your speed changes to be. FCP may be slightly neater or more intuitive, but once you get the hang of Resolve it's a breeze.
THAT SAID: Resolve does not handle audio speed ramping as nicely as FCP. If that's not important to you (which it isn't, for a lot of slow/fast motion) then no worries. But in some instances it's nice to have the audio match the speed ramping in a way that sounds "natural," for lack of a better term: i.e., a smooth transition to slow, lower frequencies when footage is slowed down, and vice versa for when it's sped up. FCP does this really well (and maybe it's cheating and just creating the sounds we *think* we should be hearing). Resolve is just okay at this.
But, the Speed Warp function in Resolve (for creating slow motion, or super slow motion) is absolutely second to none. It blows FCP Optical Flow out of the water. Render times are significantly longer, and it may brick your machine for the duration of the render (depending on your machine), but it is truly in a league of its own.
NorBro : while this may work in theory, in practice it's a total nightmare. Because FCP likes to render *everything*, it means you end up with libraries (or cache files) that are literally hundreds of gigabytes in size. Yes, you can clean those files out (indeed you have to, unless you're working with infinite storage), but FCP will just keep rendering things. The result is you can't share a library easily unless you share a drive. How can you have two editors working collaboratively, remotely, if they have to pass 500GB libraries back and forth regularly? It's a mess. It's also a pain to be in the middle of editing and have FCP tell you that your 2TB SSD is nearly full, despite it only containing a couple projects.
NorBro
Major Contributor
oh, boy...lol. You have to turn rendering off. They've had that option since they made X.
I haven't rendered anything since FCP 7.
I don't know too many people who render in modern times for video editing...unless it's like crazy heavy.
It would be impossible if you have rendering on, and would be a nightmare to get anything done, in general, with the constant interruptions (even though it pauses itself).
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I keep rendering off but it would be nice if I didn't have to. Background rendering is a cool idea. ...in theory...
Drboffa, very interesting to hear about the speed ramping in resolve. And the slow motion quality-- which I don't like to do, but sometimes I have to.
Also about optical flow - it generates huge amounts of data. (I think fcp may process the whole source clip as opposed to just the part you're using?) And it uses this process for framerate conversions, not just speed changes. It can add 100-200GB to a library file that was 10GB if you optical flow a lot of shots
I've only had audio speed ramping experience in fcp with speech (as opposed to natural sounds) and it can cause some anomalies. I found that I needed to finish the ramp before they started talking. But the vast majority of the time I ramp is with MOS b-roll anyway. One thing I appreciate about fcp is how easy it is to shift what frame the ramp begins since I usually need to fidget quite a bit with my ramps to get them right
Drboffa, very interesting to hear about the speed ramping in resolve. And the slow motion quality-- which I don't like to do, but sometimes I have to.
Also about optical flow - it generates huge amounts of data. (I think fcp may process the whole source clip as opposed to just the part you're using?) And it uses this process for framerate conversions, not just speed changes. It can add 100-200GB to a library file that was 10GB if you optical flow a lot of shots
I've only had audio speed ramping experience in fcp with speech (as opposed to natural sounds) and it can cause some anomalies. I found that I needed to finish the ramp before they started talking. But the vast majority of the time I ramp is with MOS b-roll anyway. One thing I appreciate about fcp is how easy it is to shift what frame the ramp begins since I usually need to fidget quite a bit with my ramps to get them right
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Thinking about this again - don't you run into trouble since the gamuts are different? It's not just about the gamma curve, right? Or is the gamut similar, too?
drboffa
Well-known member
NorBro You might be blowing my mind (and workflow) with this practice of turning rendering off... I've been using FCP since 2015 and don't think I've ever bothered with that setting.
ahalpert The edits I do in FCP generally use a lot of Optical Flow, so maybe that's a big part of the problem with my libraries. I routinely have to go in and manually clean them out in the library package. As you note, they generate huge amounts of data.
ahalpert The edits I do in FCP generally use a lot of Optical Flow, so maybe that's a big part of the problem with my libraries. I routinely have to go in and manually clean them out in the library package. As you note, they generate huge amounts of data.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Very nice videos. I love the overall look and the editing. It is the kind of video I'd be no good at producing, so I admire those who can.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
It's my understanding that if you set your camera for S-LOG3.cine, you are essentially recording footage that has very similar gamma and color gamut as Arri LogC. In post, you can treat S-LOG3.cine the same as LogC.
Here's my understanding of the evolution of S-LOG. This isn't written down anywhere in any official document, but it is the conclusion I came to after a lot of face-to-face conversations with the right people and reading between the lines of Sony's documents. I have mentioned this theory to the powers that be several times in casual conversations, and nobody has told me I'm wrong:
S-LOG2 is the superior version of S-LOG. I don't think anyone who has serious experience working with S-LOG2 and S-LOG3 would dispute that. One of the big differences is that it handles highlights better and won't clip whites at 94 IRE like S-LOG3. However, S-LOG2 was not well-received by high-end experienced colorists in Hollywood and elsewhere. They didn't care that it was technically better. What they cared about is that Sony footage shot with S-LOG2 had to be treated differently in post than the Arri footage that dominated (and continues to dominate) the industry. Some people are very resistant to change and doing things differenty, so there was a lot of push back at high levels. Even for lower-end producers (like us) S-LOG2 was a little tricky because Resolve didn't include any S-LOG2 compatible LUTs, which meant people had to track them down and install them on their own. Which, apparently, is a big hassle for some people. I haven't done a fresh install of Resolve for many years, but as far as I know, there still aren't any S-LOG2 LUTs included with Resolve. But I might be wrong on that point. Perhaps someone who has recently installed Resolve for the first time could check to see if there are any S-LOG2 LUTs.
Sony's solution to the slow accpetance of S-LOG2 (and therefore slow acceptance of their cinema cameras) by mainstream Hollywood was to create the shooting mode called S-LOG3/S-Gamut3.cine. The whole point of shooting with S-LOG3.cine is the the file is very similar to Arri LogC. Whatever LUTs or other grading you apply to an Arri clip can be directly applied to a Sony clip and you'll see similar results.
I still prefer to use S-LOG2 on my cameras that offer it. But going forward, we'll be limited more an more to having only an S-LOG3 option.
BTW, one advantage of shooting RAW with my F55 is that I can bring that footage into post and decode it as S-LOG2 or S-LOG3, just as if it had been shot that way in the first palce. In every side-by-side test I've done, I always preferred working with the S-LOG2 version.
Last edited:
NorBro
Major Contributor
Yeah, it's a must. As ahalpert noted...in theory it's nice, but in practice background rendering is trouble.
I immediately disliked it in 2011 when I saw the tasks icon start spinning and a process was starting without my doing. If anything, they should make it like iPhone updates and have FCP do "nighttime rendering" and render all projects overnight (or only the ones chosen from a checklist or what not, or only a certain event, etc. etc).
drboffa
Well-known member
Doug Jensen There are still no slog2 LUTs in Resolve. You can do a Color Space Transform from slog2/sgamut to Rec709 (or whatever), but no LUTs.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Yeah, I didn't think so. Thanks for the confirmation.
In case anyone wants it, here's the link to Sony's S-LOG2 LUT.
Third line down on this page.
https://pro.sony/en_GB/support-resources/software/00263050
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Dave says there are no S-LOG2 LUTs. Who's right?
As for the LUTs looking like crap, I'd have to disagree. They are just meant to be the base, not the final grade. And they are a hell of a lot easier to use than transforms which always brought my playback performance to it's knees the last time I experimented with that approach.
Last edited: