Consensus on Sony A7SII Picture Profiles

I think people are getting too caught up in this a bit. The camera has been used on countless tv shows and docs. It can absolutely do a good job. But just not in slog
 
It does on the A6300. Just a little, but it's there in the shadows. But you pay for it in banding. S-Log2 doesn't have that problem, but the shadows lose color detail and get noisier a bit sooner.
 
It's all relative. Get a Red Epic or an Alexa and you're going to have issues with them too. For $3K the Sony is ok for me. Besides, story is king.
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm super happy with my current sony. It's just that since the a7S II didn't have a big DR advantage I skipped it. But I use slog2 all the time. My RX100 IV has A LOT more DR than any Canon DSLR, for example, and that's just crazy.
 
But you pay for it in banding. S-Log2 doesn't have that problem, but the shadows lose color detail and get noisier a bit sooner.
Click to expand...

I see that too but I turn the black gamma down to narrow -5 and add film gamma contrast anyway so it doesn't bother me. I like it.

Btw, who said every little ugly gray shadow detail was important? Was it Hemingway or Einstein? They should be impaled.
 
Last edited:
But surely if you're adjusting the gamma curve then you're not shooting Slog and so the whole thing is a moot point.
 
So it's not log anymore. So? Doesn't matter to me and I don't see how having an image I'm happy with is a "moot point".

Are you implying I might as well use Cine 4? Forget it.

I've tried tests shooting flat in slog-3 and then using curves and contrast plug-ins to duplicate the look I get by lowering the gamma curve in camera. I can't duplicate it.

If someone could recommend a method I would give it a try. But remember, I'm only looking to lower the narrow portion of the bottom of the curve, not the whole thing. So I have rich, dark blacks and everything else is unaffected. But I have a suspicion that any recommendations I get are things I've already tried and rejected.
 
Calm down I'm not having a go at you. Most people who shoot slog do so following an slog post workflow. Obviously you can't do that and get accurate results if you're adjusting the gamma before you perform transforms.

If you have your own bespoke workflow set out and it all works for you then ace.
 
Ok. No offense meant. Maybe I'm not happy with accurate results. I'm not sure how those would be defined anyway. Color charts, etc?

You would probably scoff at another crazy thing I do in-camera for great skin tones that I won't mention here. I don't need the grief. I'm tickled with the results though.

Btw, I think you mentioned before you were shooting for tv. Accuracy is probably mandatory then.
 
Accurate as in a dedicated technical slog to rec709 LUT would now not make the transforms it is supposed to.

If you get to a pleasing image another way that's all good.
 
Accurate as in a dedicated technical slog to rec709 LUT would now not make the transforms it is supposed to.
Click to expand...

Ok. Agreed. We've been over this but I'm not using a technical LUT anymore. I'm going straight from camera into some correction tools, then a film contrast/saturation LUT.

Btw, I don't know if you use Impulz LUTs but this is what the owner told me in an e-mail once:

"The process of applying an ImpulZ LUT (FC, FPE, VS) to your S-LOG2 footage is effectively converting the footage to Rec709 with the color characteristics of the chosen film stock.

Using a gamma conversion LUT to bring the S-LOG2 to a Rec709 viewing gamma before applying an ImpulZ LUT is not going to yield the intended results but it might still be worth to experiment with this process and the generic Rec709 LUTs to get different creative results."

So he contends his LUTs do the converting for you. Regardless, I'm satisfied with the results I'm getting.

Here's a couple screen grabs from a recent scene I shot at a forensics lab. Things always look milkier on this site than they really are, but see how black the microscope, my glasses, the monitor, the control knobs can get without affecting everything else? That's the look I'm going for.

Image4.jpg



Image3.jpg
 
Last edited:
well yes 'look LUTs' like Impulz are doing a transform to rec709 from the specified input and then adding their preset on top of it just like loading a Magic Bullet Looks preset, which people have been doing for years with no probs - other than stuff starting to all look the same.

I think some of the impulz luts look great, although I don't think any of them make footage look like it was shot on film like they claim. Time and a place for them though. :)

Top shot looks great. Bottom shot is relatively lower in contrast (I assume due to flatter lighting and no in-scene contrast) and could maybe do with removing some magenta if it is intended to with balance with the top one.
 
I have Magic Bullet Looks and I think it just looks like different hues and shades of color correction and diffusion pasted over the footage. Insufferable.

Impulz LUTs look a lot more transformative/organic to me--like it's really changing the pixels. That said, I had to go through dozens of them to find only 3-4 that I like.

They have some that look a lot more filmic to me (like their film print emulations) but they come with other problems like pasty skin tones and/or a lot more color noise.
 
I hear what you're saying and I'd agree with you about Magic Bullet's day being somewhat over but they are the 2016 version of the same thing.

As Colorist Marc Weilage pointed out ages ago on Lift Gamma Gain when discussing Look Luts with some of the makers of them - If LUTa was an accurate emulation of a film stock based on scans/detailed deep diving how comes LUTa for 8 different highly regarded makers all look completely different?

The reason is because they are just arbitrary transforms plonked on the rec709 transform and saved out as a preset. There's nothing wrong with that and they can look great. They just don't look like film. They look like a film look preset LUT.

Aside from everything else involved in the film process you have the stock you shot on plus the delivery print stock - both of which have a huge bearing on what an image looks like. Films which are distributed digitally will still have an answer print emulation LUT applied.


If you have your Kodak vision 200T LUT applied and it's now obviously in a REC709 colour space, what is it emulating as the answer print?


Koji I believe allows you to apply an acquisition stock to Cineon LUT and then at the end a film emulation Cineon to print stock LUT, which depending on the accuracy of the LUTs and the source material might be a more 'authentic' way to go.


Or you can sack all that off and ignore it and just made a video and grade it however you want until it looks like you want it to look and not get bogged down by the mechanics of what is happening :)
 
Well, it seems now you're getting into 10-bit workflow on a 8-bit forum. I guess it's personal preference but layering multiple LUTs on 8-bit footage is too destructive for my tastes.

Impulz makes some all-in-one LUTs called Osiris that try to emulate the whole negative to print to release print process and they look just.........okay.

The look I can get with the above example LUT is somewhere in between a video and film look, I think. Film-ic. The colors are very different than the originals. There's some color noise but it's not insufferable.

Here's the original footage:

Image6.jpg

Here's with the film stock color LUT applied:

Image7.jpg


Nowadays with even big budget stuff shot digitally, I see a trend where they're not even trying to look like film-- Off the top of my head I'm thinking "The Revenant". It looks unabashedly digital. And in 10 years it might look vintage, right?
 
Last edited:
There's nothing wrong with not looking like film. Super 16mm looks nothing like Super8 or 65mm. Sensors are the new film stocks and most people can see an Arri look from a Sony one etc. but they are all valid looks.

But I was talking about look LUTs in general. They are just grade presets, no matter what the marketing bumpf tells you. They are not accurate to the film stocks on the name in any way. If they work for you then great.

I've used them a few times in the past but only with log footage. These days i prefer to grade by hand alongside a technical LUT.

I don't shoot the A7 in Slog because the cons outweigh the pros for me.

EDIT: Revenant had some film shots in it
 
Last edited:
I've tried grading by hand and maybe I don't have the skills or maybe Sony Vegas is not the best tool but I can't get what I'm after doing it that way.

See the little yellow box on the left side of the wall in the above shots? Grading by hand I could not change that from bright yellow to darker yellow without really affecting everything else.
 
Viscount Omega said:
I've tried grading by hand and maybe I don't have the skills or maybe Sony Vegas is not the best tool but I can't get what I'm after doing it that way.
Click to expand...

I use Sony Vegas and it's great for a super quick turnaround. I hope MAGIX don't destroy it.

For the last few days I have been experimenting using Davinci Resolve and it's truly amazing what can be done in that software. I have been putting off learning Resolve because I'm lazy. To be honest it's pretty simple to use coming from a Vegas background and I suggest you give it a try. And what is even more amazing is it's free to use. Spend a few hours watching tutorials and you are good to go.

Don't forget you need to grade your footage before adding a LUT. It's so much easier using Resolve for grading. Try it you won't regret it.

I would love an 7S II but I can't face buying another 8 bit camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top