Ok so this may be a semi noob question, but I have a brand new project that I got a Sony A7s for to give me the look I want, and I did some research on slog2 since I have never used it before and because it seems like anyone using an A7s is filming with slog2. Filming would be entirely indoors meaning no extreme highlights like one would get outside, and likewise because there will be artificial lighting there wouldn't be as pitch black areas as could happen on a more natural setting as well. Everything I looked into regarding slog2 seems to have people always using it outdoors, but given my indoor scenario would there be any point in using it or would it just give me more work for very little visible gain? So far I like the soft PP6 profile which seems to be Cine Gamma 2, it gives me a softer less harsh look which is what I'm looking for, but I don't mind learning how to deal with slog2 if there would be some tangible real world benefit to it. But with my less extreme indoor lighting range I wonder if it's worth the hassle, but I can't be sure since slog2 is completely new to me.
is slog2 needed indoors when using a Sony A7s?
- Thread starter joker454
- Start date
olof
DVXuser Sponsor
Only you and your client needs can answer that question.
A bunch of testing is really what you need to do. You can use a light meter to figure out how many stops your scene is, and if it is 10 or less there is no need for Slog.
Like any camera there is no one way to use it. I don't mean to confuse the issue. It is just how I treat any new camera. As a matter of fact I am just going out to shoot some foliage with 3 different camera and recorders, to compare results. FS700 with and w/o O7Q in HD and 4K and the A7s. I will be trying different PPs and settings. I know the FS700 pretty well it will be interesting to compare the 3 results. Foliage really pushes the color boundaries and it is windy too to this makes for good compression quality check with all those tiny leafs moving with so many different colors.
A bunch of testing is really what you need to do. You can use a light meter to figure out how many stops your scene is, and if it is 10 or less there is no need for Slog.
Like any camera there is no one way to use it. I don't mean to confuse the issue. It is just how I treat any new camera. As a matter of fact I am just going out to shoot some foliage with 3 different camera and recorders, to compare results. FS700 with and w/o O7Q in HD and 4K and the A7s. I will be trying different PPs and settings. I know the FS700 pretty well it will be interesting to compare the 3 results. Foliage really pushes the color boundaries and it is windy too to this makes for good compression quality check with all those tiny leafs moving with so many different colors.
nyvz
Veteran
If you're confident you can get exactly the look you want using CINE2 and don't want to do much/any grading, use that. If you want more flexibility in post by having an easier time tweaking exposure and better compatibility with LUTs you may want to use use SLOG2. Cinegammas are naturally somewhat limited in that you have to nail exposure and you are stick with a certain amount of over/under dynamic range, whereas SLOG2 is easier to over or under expose on set and adjust in post and get the right balance of highlight and shadow range you want. If you are shooting very low contrast, you could overexpose SLOG2 by as much as 3 stops, bring it back in post and get super clean images. With CINE2 you need to set your exposure more accurately and won't have as much room to change it since your highlights and shadows will be compressed relative to your midtones so you can't just bring them up or down so easily, you'll be stuck with whatever noise performance CINE2 gives when exposed normally and won't as easily be able to fix overexposed skin or scene elements.
The client is actually me, I'm filming for a new website that will be updated weekly. I did film a bunch of tests, normally I use a 4k Sony AX100 camera for my other websites but that camera is totally unsuitable for the look I want for this website so I tried the A7s in stock and all it's picture modes. It was fairly easy for me to settle on picture profile 6 because I use Filmconvert and they fortunately just added an A7s profile, so it was easy to do some test filming, slap Filmconvert on it and pick a favorite. PP7 though with slog2 is a different beast and adding Filmconvert to it clearly isn't enough as the image still looked wrong to me, and given that I don't yet know how to grade slog2 means there is no easy way currently for me to compare it to the other modes. I figure before diving into learning slog2 that maybe I should ask here and see if it would even be worth while given my more limited dynamic range film situations. As far as grading goes I tend to just grade very lightly, and to be honest I think Filmconvert gets me 95% of the way there with the regular non sglog2 picture profiles since I don't go too extreme on the looks, but I love having the choice of different film stock looks. I'll play with it some more and see what I come up with, I think because of the regular weekly film schedule that I may want something a bit easier like PP6 + Filmconvert but I'll see.
For me, I try to use S-Log for everything. The times I don't use it, is if a client wants AVCHD with a pre-baked look, which is fairly often on lower budget and / or quick turn around jobs like reality shows and sports.
The highlight roll off on S-Log is just great. Even indoors, this often comes in handy. For example, if you're filming a wine glass by a window that's hit by the sun. The highlights will be much better with S-Log than Cinegammas.
With that said, I'm on the FS700 + 7Q which is 10-bit vs 8 Bit for the A7s. Huge difference in grade ability. IMO, S-Log requires a 10-bit codec for any kind of semi-demanding grading.
Also, one other reason is the I like the skin-tones on S-Log much better than cinegammas, which sometimes have these yellow-ish highlights that S-Log does not get.
The highlight roll off on S-Log is just great. Even indoors, this often comes in handy. For example, if you're filming a wine glass by a window that's hit by the sun. The highlights will be much better with S-Log than Cinegammas.
With that said, I'm on the FS700 + 7Q which is 10-bit vs 8 Bit for the A7s. Huge difference in grade ability. IMO, S-Log requires a 10-bit codec for any kind of semi-demanding grading.
Also, one other reason is the I like the skin-tones on S-Log much better than cinegammas, which sometimes have these yellow-ish highlights that S-Log does not get.
Last edited:
Samuel H
Major Contributor
I use slog2 (actually, Flaat) for everything too, even when there's no need for the extra DR (which may or may not be the case when shooting interiors). Just so I can stick to my usual post workflow. I know: lazy. But I don't think it has a big effect on final image quality.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
Generally interiors don't tend to feature the same range of contrast as exteriors, but it can still exist in less grandiose fashion. Any given practical in the shot, from a table lamp to a sconce to a recessed light will likely have value somewhere in it that approaches or meets clip, and how the camera handles that part of the curve remains relevant. I shoot everything in log unless there is a very specific reason not to.
MichaelFischer.at
Active member
We are shooting a short film on the weekend and I did some tests with the cine gammas on the A7s. Since we will be shooting outdoors and I probably need to work with ISO100.
Somehow the cine gammas didn't work for me, as they have a very special gamma response, which makes them more difficult to grade. Usually I do a Lift-Gamma-Gain correction followed by a curve to add contrast. To get the same tonalilty as a graded S-Log picture, I have to pull stunts with special curves, which I don't really like to do.
What really suprised me is, that if you disable the picture profiles and just use "Std" with contrast at -3, sat at 0 and sharpness as you desire, you will get a response that is quite similar to BMDFilm4k. This is actually a more contrasty, but logarythmic, response.
If you have a supported color chart at hand, you can test that in Resolve via the "Color Match" function. The max. difference are 2 %, which is the same as if you shoot in S-Log and use this feature.
To match my "Std, -3, 0, -2" setting, I use S-Log2 with "Movie" colors, Saturation +4, Detail -4. After matching the waveform/gamma, the vectorsope should be almost identical.
Hope that helps, just my 2 c
Somehow the cine gammas didn't work for me, as they have a very special gamma response, which makes them more difficult to grade. Usually I do a Lift-Gamma-Gain correction followed by a curve to add contrast. To get the same tonalilty as a graded S-Log picture, I have to pull stunts with special curves, which I don't really like to do.
What really suprised me is, that if you disable the picture profiles and just use "Std" with contrast at -3, sat at 0 and sharpness as you desire, you will get a response that is quite similar to BMDFilm4k. This is actually a more contrasty, but logarythmic, response.
If you have a supported color chart at hand, you can test that in Resolve via the "Color Match" function. The max. difference are 2 %, which is the same as if you shoot in S-Log and use this feature.
To match my "Std, -3, 0, -2" setting, I use S-Log2 with "Movie" colors, Saturation +4, Detail -4. After matching the waveform/gamma, the vectorsope should be almost identical.
Hope that helps, just my 2 c
Thanks for that, I've yet to try standard mode instead hopping to the picture profiles figuring that was the best use of the camera, but I will give standard mode a test as well. Although I think I've settled on what I'm going to do. I decided against slog because for my needs I don't think it's worth the extra hassle. Ultimately I don't create content for others, it's all created for my websites and I need a quick turn around since they are updated weekly. So I think for me the ideal scenario is one that requires the least amount of work and gets me "most" of the way there for the look. With that I think I've settled on the A7s + PP6 (cine2) + Filmcovert. With Filmconvert I use it's A7s/Cine2 preset with the FJ Velv 100 film stock and saturation and sharpness boosted slightly. I realize settings and lighting can be very subjective, but in my scenario where I film in a house with dark colored walls and use two LED Nova light panels to light things I find those settings are actually good to go for me as is. I could tweak, fiddle and improve forever but I'm going to go with those stock settings as that hits my goal of getting me most of the way there as far as look goes with very quick turnaround time. I've setup a Vegas Pro script so with one click all the settings are applied instantly. I'm very happy with this look although I will mess with standard mode a bit as well just in case.