FS7: FS7 Noise in Shadows

I have started to shoot more in Slog2. Its technically both a good and a bad idea depending on your style of shooting and exposing and grading workflow and the look you want. Basicly, if your like me and like to shoot some pretty dark images and wont push those dark areas of the image up, slog2 looks better in my opinion. Slog3 have more luma levels down there but if you make sure you have what you need in Slog2 the whole tonality of the image sings better in my opinion. How the shadows goes into midlevels and then to the highlights just looks very good in Slog2, and the noise is more controlled.
 
I completely agree. S-LOG2 is almost always my choice. In my opinion, S-LOG3/S-gamut.cine came about because Sony wanted to give customers something that was closer to Arri Log that they could plug into the same workflow and use the same LUTs in post. A lot of people at the higher end of post don't take well to any changes if it means doing things differently so S-LOG2 wasn't being handled properly. So S-LOG3 was born. But I am certain that S-LOG2 is still the superior of the two.

I mostly shoot RAW with my F55 so I have the advantage of deciding in post whether to grade footage as S-LOG2 or S-LOG3 after it has been shot. And when I have done experiments to see which flavor of S-LOG is better to my eyes -- S-LOG2 has always won. I'm not saying there is a giant difference because in most instances they can both be graded to look virtually identical, but when there is a difference, S-LOG2 gets the nod. That's been my experience, anyway, after almost 5 years of using LOG/RAW.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Mark, how well do you know Resolve?
Click to expand...

Fair question. I only have the free version of Resolve. And I've only been using it for a little over 2 years - so I certainly don't consider myself an expert. But I would also turn that question around and ask you - how well do you know FCPX?
(and OP - truly sorry - didn't mean to hijack the thread - but like others - agree if you post samples - it's easier to give an opinion.)
 
markfpv said:
how well do you know FCPX?
Click to expand...

Fair question. I will admit that I know even less about FCPX than you know about Resolve. But I would also turn that question around and ask you - how many professional colorists do you think are using FCPX for grading?
 
Doug Jensen said:
Chris, I respect your decision not to use S-LOG in low light and I wouldn't try to change your mind. But just for the record, I want to say that I shoot S-LOG or RAW for everything without any regard to the lighting levels or subject matter and I think it grades out fine in post. Just wanted to throw in another point of view.
Click to expand...

Same here Doug.
 
Doug Jensen said:
...how many professional colorists do you think are using FCPX for grading?
Click to expand...

this is a clever catch question Doug :D
You don't need to be a colorist to grade log footage but you can be a professional though. FCPX has priceless features like media management, keyword collections and the magnetic timeline. Another priceless features are great color tools which allow you to grade log footage without roundtripping to Resolve. Oh yes, time saving is priceless too. Off course you don't get the top notch colorist level but nobody of my clients is willing tp pay for that level. It's the horses for courses thing and as long you don't go for a steeplechase it doesn't make sense to have one of these horses in the stable.
 
That's all fine and dandy if you prefer FCPX, but just in case you didn't notice, the OP isn't using FCPX either. He's using Premiere, and that software, I can assure you, is very inferior to Resolve when it comes to grading S-LOG or RAW.
 
You are right Doug premiere is not fully ready for grading Slog3 but you can made your own lut with 3dlutcreator and have all Tools you need like resolve . i'm impatient adobe speed the integration of speedgrade Inside lumetri…. but i think i have to wait again.
 
rudo_fr said:
You are right Doug premiere is not fully ready for grading Slog3 but you can made your own lut with 3dlutcreator and have all Tools you need like resolve . i'm impatient adobe speed the integration of speedgrade Inside lumetri…. but i think i have to wait again.
Click to expand...

Really? All the tools you need? I hadn't noticed that Premiere had moved to a node-based interface, has power windows, has improved their scopes, has made it easy easier to see exactly what transformations are being applied to a clip, allows you to render individual clips from a single time line, has a thumbnail based interface, has customizable gallery of presets, allows a myriad of clip naming export options, and dozens of other things that Resolve has always done much better. This is all news to me that Premiere has added these features that I must have to work quickly and efficiently. I'm sure a lot of professional colorists will be making the jump to Premiere very soon.
 
Not really Doug, 3dlutcreator add just some necessary Tools we don't have Inside premiere, i will prefer have nativelly all you mention but for the moment it is the only tool i found to have right grading Tools without destroy slog3 in premiere pro. Each time i tried resolve, i go back to premiere even with all his very good grading Tools, well implemented and well optimised tools. I think for my jobs that Premiere is more adequate. I just hope adobe will resolve this in futur updates….
 
Tools and an intuitive interface are one thing, but it's what's under the hood of Resolve that NLE's can't touch. Processing. This becomes especially important as more people move toward a RAW workflow and the quality of debayering becomes more important. Resolve has this covered. I've moved over to RAW/X-OCN for 90% of my work and I have every bit of confidence in Resolve's capabilities. I know what's going in and I know what to expect coming out.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Chris, I respect your decision not to use S-LOG in low light and I wouldn't try to change your mind. But just for the record, I want to say that I shoot S-LOG or RAW for everything without any regard to the lighting levels or subject matter and I think it grades out fine in post. Just wanted to throw in another point of view.
Click to expand...

That's the great thing different strokes for different folks. I've shot both LOG and 709 in controlled low light situations. Can work with either. I get quite a few post jobs with SLOG3 and if the exposures aren't spot on it just creates a lot more work. For quicker turn around especially for broadcast I prefer Rec 709 finding it quicker to work with. You would know from your experience that even with an 8-bit 709 camera like the PDW-800 you could get some great looking images and grades out it. Many episodes of Top Gear shot with 700 and 800's and graded up beautifully. In fact the old SD Digi-Beta 10-bit 422 Rec 709 was a pleasure to grade for TV. Everyone to his choice as often different shoot modes work better for some jobs than others.

Chris Young
 
Hey Chris,

I don't disagre with anything you've written. I can also point to plenty of examples on network television and with my own work with the F800, F3, Z450, etc. that look really great with nothing more than a good REC709 scene file. I am certainly not against using REC709 scene files. All I was saying in my earlier post is that I don't shy away from using S-LOG in low light.
 
I shot a camping scene literally last night with my FS7. Shot at ISO 2000 in SLOG3. The footage looks fantastic. There is definitely some shadow noise, but I intend the scene to look like night time so most of the shadows (and noise) will crush to black. If you're properly exposed and seeing noise at ISO500 then either you have faulty hardware or you've done something terribly wrong.

Regarding the Resolve vs Premiere vs FCPX grading issue, the answer is always "it depends". I shoot plenty of stuff with quick turnarounds that really only need a LUT + a little exposure adjustment + a little contrast adjustment + a minor shift in tint and temperature. These projects do not need to roundtrip through Resolve. I also do commercials that spend days in color; basically every part of every shot is considered and tweaked. For these projects, there is no alternative to a program like Resolve.
 
Agreed Doug. It all depends on the requirements of the job in hand. I've delivered S-LOG 2 & 3 graded for broadcast. I don't shy away from SLOGs and use them if asked. For a lot of my work broadcasters want fast turn around pretty noiseless pics that require minimal grading. They love good old 709 and I give them that and they are happy to pay for it. I've had cases where LOG going to broadcasters brings the response "Why is your footage noisy?" It's obviously because their limited post facility ops don't know how to grade LOG correctly. Their inability to handle LOG correctly has sometimes backfired on me so I avoid LOG for broadcast unless I KNOW that the post crew working on it are right on top of the workflow required.

For what it's worth when it comes to LOG I often prefer S-LOG2 to S-LOG3 but the choice between the two is determined by me to best suit the shoot post requirements. One of my clients loves one of my home brewed S-LOG2 / Custom Matrix scene files to anything else. People say to me "S-LOG2 and Custom together?" I say don't knock it until you have tried a decent scene file based on that combo.

All good on the set:)

Chris Young
 
What's the scene file you use for Slog2 Chris. I've had trouble getting that right so the color looks good on my FS7. I've had very mixed results. Some shots look absolutely great, but in others the Red jumps out like crazy. I was using a personal Matrix set up for Std & HG 709 not one of the standard choices.
That matrix always looks great for my custom shooting and I don't know why Slog2 as a gamma should change that. After all isn't Sgamut the same color space for std and Hypergammas on the FS7?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top