S-CINETONE Booster LUTs for FX6, FX9, etc.

Bassman2003 said:
I would really to like to have seen these same van scenes shot with the other profile choices discussed in the thread. Would they fair as well?
Click to expand...

Understood, Bassman. Sorry, no can do with that footage. My biggest problem is motivating myself to go out and go through the steps to make these comparisons. I now know what works for me, so just tend to rumble on from there. Though fully understand the curiosity of having controlled comparisons. Now can I motivate myself. :)

Chris Young
 
Here are a couple of clips anyone can look at or download. One is in daylight, the VanMan clip, as I used a still of that previously. This was shot in HD with the "old" 2000 ISO FS7 S-LOG3 Cine. Now shown here with the DLAD_SLOG3_709 LUT added.

The second clip is a "new" 4K DCI 12800 ISO FX6 S-LOG3 Cine clip with the DLAD_SLOG3_709 LUT added. This one has had a bit of "artistic warming" for lack of a better expression, but nothing else done to it. The main reason for using this second clip is it is show a low light clip with solid shadow areas along with nasty highlights. It is punctuated with nasty hot car headlights and taillights that need to be kept under control, so they don't blow out to totally clipped white colorless blobs. Remember, should be viewed on a 709 screen. For delivery purposes I use a cheap 22" Philps LED TV and a higher quality a well calibrated 4K LG C1 55" OLED. That seems to cover most viewing scenarios. I'm happy if a finished video looks presentable on those two extremes. As Gerald says, "I'm done!"

Chris Young

FS7 HD

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nKmLal9pGZVw0OlyteoztfEIxWK8g5oI/view?usp=sharing

FX6 4K

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X8AK57oTWLGszffBtB_9Q-UXlrgnKfv6/view?usp=sharing
 
You certainly did nail it, Chris! Those two clips have horrendous highlights, especially that white van in bright sunlight. Congratulations and thanks for sharing.
 
stewhem said:
You certainly did nail it, Chris! Those two clips have horrendous highlights, especially that white van in bright sunlight. Congratulations and thanks for sharing.
Click to expand...

Thanks. It's working for me. If you want to give it a run, let me know.

Chris Young
 
cyvideo said:
True Doug. I'm totally self-taught on Resolve. Used Resolve before v11 for grading but really started to use it in depth for editing since v11, clunky though it was for editing back then but, I stuck with it. Much of learning was by the true and tested trial and error method. But the basis of my node workflow was based purely on Davinci's own manual, which for me clearly laid out the node workflow when working on the Color page. So basically that's the workflow I've become accustomed to. I didn't know any better back then than to try to second guess the way to do things, so just followed that. But as you say, how the product looks at the end is the defining point.

Chris Young

Click to expand...

Chris, I think the node have circled would be the correct placment for a creative LUT, such as giving it a "blockbuster" look or whatever. The kind of technical LUT we are talking about must come much earlier in the workflow on the first or second node. If you look at the top line of your chart you'll see a step that says "Input LUT". Granted, that top line is talking about a RAW workflow, but a LOG workflow must also have a technical LUT or some kind of Input Transform right at the beginning. Do they have a flowchart for LOG?

I don't have time to post links, but if you do a Google search you'll find most experienced colorists will advise only doing exposure adjustments before the ftechnical LUT. Everything else comes later. If you mess with the video before the LUT then the video isn't clean S-LOG anymore when it hits the LUT.

The reason exposure adjustments come before the LUT is because LUTs expect the video to come in at a certain level. If the levels aren't right, then the LUT won't perform as designed. It also elminates the need to have multiple similar LUTs for different exposure levels.

All other stuff comes after exposure and the input LUT. That is why they call everythig else"secondary" color grading. Is the order you make adjustments always going to make a difference? No. But that doesn't change the fact that is the recommended workflow. Just saying. :)
 
I may well have been doing it wrong but I have always made all adjustments, except for sharpening, under the lut node with log footage.
I thought that was the correct order...
 

Maybe this is what you're saying and I'm just misunderstanding, but I believe this diagram is showing the order of operations (i.e., what Resolve does) within each node, rather than a proposed order of operations. That is, within a single node the first thing to happen will be Motion Blur, followed by Noise Reduction, etc. This is assuming you have multiple effects on a single node; if you split your effects across different nodes, the order of operations will, of course, follow the node path.

The manual for Resolve 18 makes this more explicit in its description of the pipeline.

As for colorists' approaches, I've seen a mix of pros working both under or on top of a LUT. But with a technical LUT (rather than a creative LUT) it may be the case to stick with most secondary work after the LUT, as Doug says (I'm not a pro colorist).

That said, like you I tend to work underneath the LUT and find the results generally work for me.

Resolve LUT workflow +.jpg
 
drboffa said:
I believe this diagram is showing the order of operations (i.e., what Resolve does) within each node, rather than a proposed order of operations. That is, within a single node the first thing to happen will be Motion Blur, followed by Noise Reduction, etc. ]
Click to expand...

Yes, now that you point it out I agree completely. That is exactly what the chart is showing.
It doesn't change my advice about the order of where to put the LUT, but is is interesting information to see the order that Resolve applies the effects within a node. I've wondered about this very thing when I've put muliple changes on a single node. Now I know.
 
I'm certainly not looking for arguments - and I'm definitely no Resolve or color expert. But this whole thread does have me scratching my head a bit - especially since I do value Doug's insight and his sharing of knowledge. Same goes for you, Chris - you both are 2 reasons I continue to check into this place.

But, I thought, when Sony introduced S Cinetone, Doug, you were definitely not a fan and posted as such on this forum. And I agreed with you then. I don't own an FX6 or 9 - but I've shot absolutely zero footage using that PP on my A7sIII - other than testing it out when it was first introduced to compare it to the other 3 profiles I like. I suppose if someone gave me footage shot with that, I would be a lot more interested in a lut to help make the footage look better. But - it certainly isn't my first, or even 2nd choice when shooting with my a7sIII.

My workflow remains this... shoot slog3cine (with either FS7 or on a7sIII). And then for majority of my work, add an exposure adjustment lut (the offset of bringing exposure down is included with lut) that also transforms Sony log into rec 709 space. If I've nailed exposure on my shots, then slight tweaking to taste is all that is necessary. And if I want a certain project to have a bit of a sat boost, or slightly more unsaturated greens, then tweak my lut slightly - in the editing software I'm using and output a new LUT just for that project, which then makes having to adjust every shot un-necessary. The whole goal of nailing exposure using zebra's, waveforms and other tools in camera is so that "Slapping on a lut" - gets me so close to "finished".
 
Doug Jensen said:
The reason exposure adjustments come before the LUT is because LUTs expect the video to come in at a certain level. If the levels aren't right, then the LUT won't perform as designed. It also elminates the need to have multiple similar LUTs for different exposure levels.
Click to expand...

I would agree with that statement, Doug. That's also why I still follow the advice found in the Resolve manual re saturation levels. Just checked the latest just released 18.5 manual and I still read it as saturation on the last LUT prior to the 3DLUT node. I'll check with BM during the week to see if my reasoning is off on this. You've got me second guessing myself now.

https://elements.tv/blog/davinci-resolve-18-reference-manual-is-here/

Specifically here on page 2709 of this monstrous manual:

https://documents.blackmagicdesign.com/UserManuals/DaVinci_Resolve_18_Reference_Manual.pdf#page=2709

A good 3D 709 LUT will have its chroma levels set at 75%. Within the scope of normalization prior to a 709 LUT, you can increase your saturation levels prior to the LUT without distortion to the chroma levels as long as you stick to the 709 defined levels. The dot inside the boxes for each color vector sits at 75%. The outer limits of the bigger four cornered vector boxes represents a 12% increase in saturation levels. Usually considered the maximum for broadcast. Anything outside of that is considered to be super saturated. If your production gets run through a legalizer, which most broadcasters use, anything above these chroma levels will just get clipped. A destructive process, regardless of whether you exceed limits before or after a technical 709 LUT they will be clipped. Most TV, monitors and displays will do the same if they are 709 calibrated. The same goes for a "look" LUT that's outside 709 normalization.

I hear what you say about the different approaches, before and after LUTs etc. This is obviously a minefield. As can be seen so often on serious forums like Lift Gamma Gain which is populated with a good degree of very competent professional colorists. There appears to be no consensus on this. Some say adjustments before your 709 LUT, some say at the very beginning of your node tree and some say after your 709 LUT. Some even say in the middle of your node tree. Thanks for the feedback.

Chris Young

A variety of differing approaches can be seen here:

https://www.liftgammagain.com/forum/index.php?threads/normalize-with-lut-or.13022/
 
drboffa said:
Maybe this is what you're saying and I'm just misunderstanding, but I believe this diagram is showing the order of operations (i.e., what Resolve does) within each node, rather than a proposed order of operations. That is, within a single node the first thing to happen will be Motion Blur, followed by Noise Reduction, etc. This is assuming you have multiple effects on a single node; if you split your effects across different nodes, the order of operations will, of course, follow the node path.

The manual for Resolve 18 makes this more explicit in its description of the pipeline.

As for colorists' approaches, I've seen a mix of pros working both under or on top of a LUT. But with a technical LUT (rather than a creative LUT) it may be the case to stick with most secondary work after the LUT, as Doug says (I'm not a pro colorist).

That said, like you I tend to work underneath the LUT and find the results generally work for me.
Click to expand...

Yes. It's all very open to interpretation, isn't it. Like you, I find working under the LUT works for me. I don't like having more than one process per node. Each manipulation is on a separate node. I find that a far less confusing way to work. I also always name my nodes functions, allowing me to see at a glance as to what each node is doing. Plus, I find having the ability to turn individual nodes off or on makes cross-checking adjustments so much easier. As I said in my reply to Doug, I'll talk to the guys in Melbourne. Though most of the dev team now work out of Singapore, but I'm sure someone will point me in the right direction. The joys of learning!

Chris Young
 
markfpv said:
I'm certainly not looking for arguments - and I'm definitely no Resolve or color expert. But this whole thread does have me scratching my head a bit - especially since I do value Doug's insight and his sharing of knowledge. Same goes for you, Chris - you both are 2 reasons I continue to check into this place.

But, I thought, when Sony introduced S Cinetone, Doug, you were definitely not a fan and posted as such on this forum. And I agreed with you then. I don't own an FX6 or 9 - but I've shot absolutely zero footage using that PP on my A7sIII - other than testing it out when it was first introduced to compare it to the other 3 profiles I like. I suppose if someone gave me footage shot with that, I would be a lot more interested in a lut to help make the footage look better. But - it certainly isn't my first, or even 2nd choice when shooting with my a7sIII.

My workflow remains this... shoot slog3cine (with either FS7 or on a7sIII). And then for majority of my work, add an exposure adjustment lut (the offset of bringing exposure down is included with lut) that also transforms Sony log into rec 709 space. If I've nailed exposure on my shots, then slight tweaking to taste is all that is necessary. And if I want a certain project to have a bit of a sat boost, or slightly more unsaturated greens, then tweak my lut slightly - in the editing software I'm using and output a new LUT just for that project, which then makes having to adjust every shot un-necessary. The whole goal of nailing exposure using zebra's, waveforms and other tools in camera is so that "Slapping on a lut" - gets me so close to "finished".
Click to expand...

Mark, on the FX6 you either have to shoot S-LOG3 or S-CINETONE. Those are the only viable options, and a lot people don't want to shoot with LOG. And why should they? For indoor interviews and stuff like that, the dynamjc range of LOG is not needed. However, S-CINETONE straight out of the camera is not good enough for air. So in either case, something has to be done in post.

So the purpose of my LUT is to have a super simple workflow for the FX6 that doesn't use LOG and can be done entirely in Premiere (or other NLE) without Resolve. Even if someone doesn't need it themselves, it gives us something to recommend to an inexperienced client. They just thave to drop the LUT on the footage and instantly S-CINETONE will almost always look ibetter. Even Chris's very good S-LOG3 LUT isn't that simple.

I actually have gone one step further and created a Premiere Preset that incorporates the LUT and a little sharpening too. So clients don't even have to call it a LUT. It's just a "preset" to them, and that terminology is often easier to swallow. Some people start to hyperventilate when they hear LOG.
 
Last edited:
cyvideo said:
Yes. It's all very open to interpretation, isn't it. Like you, I find working under the LUT works for me. I don't like having more than one process per node. Each manipulation is on a separate node. I find that a far less confusing way to work. I also always name my nodes functions, allowing me to see at a glance as to what each node is doing. Plus, I find having the ability to turn individual nodes off or on makes cross-checking adjustments so much easier.
Click to expand...

You took the words right out of my mouth. Our only difference is where in the chain the LUT should come. Mine is always on node #2.
 
Uh oh, I feel the urge coming on to do a side-by-side comparison of "S_LOG3 + Chris's LUT" vs. "S-CINETONE+ BOOSTER LUT".
That would be interesting to see. Which is the simpler workflow when you want to spend minimal effort in post?
 
Doug Jensen said:
Mark, on the FX6 you either have to shoot S-LOG3 or S-CINETONE. Those are the only viable options, and a lot people don't want to shoot with LOG. And why should they? For indoor interviews and stuff like that, the dynamjc range of LOG is not needed. However, S-CINETONE straight out of the camera is not good enough for air. So in either case, something has to be done in post.

So the purpose of my LUT is to have a super simple workflow for the FX6 that doesn't use LOG and can be done entirely in Premiere (or other NLE) without Resolve. Even if someone doesn't need it themselves, it gives us something to recommend to an inexperienced client. They just thave to drop the LUT on the footage and instantly S-CINETONE will almost always look ibetter. Even Chris's very good S-LOG3 LUT isn't that simple.

I actually have gone one step further and created a Premiere Preset that incorporates the LUT and a little sharpening too. So clients don't even have to call it a LUT. It's just a "preset" to them, and that terminology is often easier to swallow. Some people start to hyperventilate when they hear LOG.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed explanation, Doug. And I should have remembered there are no "custom" settings for the FX6 like FX9 or FS7. So my bad. And of course, now it all makes sense. Carry on. Sorry for the (hopefully brief) derailment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top