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

[AmbiSonde]

:shocked:

It seems such an odd place to start, trying to correct for general horrible image of S-Cinetone and ending up with equally horrible nuclear greens. All of those images require significant remedial work which defeats the object of these so called booster LUTs.

What the heck is wrong with S-Cinetone + ITU709 Matrix? It puts you in a far better place right out of the camera you can knock back saturation in cam plus tweak the gamma curve to tune contrast but above all the colours look normal.

 

[ahalpert]

I assume these were shot with S-Cinetone for the Gamma and Color Mode? Why not use S-Cinetone for the just the Gamma and change the color mode to something like "Movie"? This coming from the non-cinema Sony cameras, so maybe it is different on the FX6...

The point is that many people are already using S-CINETONE without modifications. Many people on this forum, for example, have said they "just use" S-CINETONE when they don't want to use s-log3. Therefore, making a LUT for S-CINETONE could be useful to a large group of users.

 

[Bassman2003]

Yes. But rather than needing a "corrective" LUT, why not just change the color mode? Both improve the color accuracy. I have not tested next to Cine2, but I am sure it is decent as the curve looks good.

 

[Doug Jensen]

:What the heck is wrong with S-Cinetone + ITU709 Matrix? It puts you in a far better place right out of the camera you can knock back saturation in cam plus tweak the gamma curve to tune contrast but above all the colours look normal.

Great idea! What are the specific settings you are suggesting? All you have to do isl tell me exactly what settings to choose I will plug them into my camera and shoot some test footage. Should be a very simple task, right? What are your suggested settings?

I'm pretty sure you don't have an FX6 at your disposal, so here is a copy of the FX6 operation manual for your conveniience. Please reference the menus by name and page number.

https://www.sony.com/electronics/sup.../50244581M.pdf

 

[Doug Jensen]

Yes. But rather than needing a "corrective" LUT, why not just change the color mode? Both improve the color accuracy. I have not tested next to Cine2, but I am sure it is decent as the curve looks good.

I'll make the same request to you too. What are the specific settings on the FX6 that will do what you are suggesting? I'll load them into my camera and shoot some footage.

 

[Doug Jensen]

The point is that many people are already using S-CINETONE without modifications. Many people on this forum, for example, have said they "just use" S-CINETONE when they don't want to use s-log3. Therefore, making a LUT for S-CINETONE could be useful to a large group of users.

Abe, at least you get it.

 

[AmbiSonde]

Yes. But rather than needing a "corrective" LUT, why not just change the color mode? Both improve the color accuracy. I have not tested next to Cine2, but I am sure it is decent as the curve looks good.

There's very little difference between any of the colour settings Sony offers, at least on the FX30 you could even choose SGamut3.cine and pump the Sat up in camera and have a pleasing result.

If ITU709-Matrix is the baseline, Sgamut3.cine's +8 Sat blues have less green, Reds are warmer. Still mode greens are rotated towards blue, Reds have less yellow and the blues have less green. Movie is similar to Still with more Sat.

ITU709-Matrix if you're trying to match other 709 cameras, any other of the above gamut settings yield decent results but if I had a gun to my head I'd pick Still mode as it is the most faithful to what I see on my monitor and out the window.

 

[ahalpert]

Yes. But rather than needing a "corrective" LUT, why not just change the color mode? Both improve the color accuracy. I have not tested next to Cine2, but I am sure it is decent as the curve looks good.

It sounds like Doug is saying that the FX6 doesn't necessarily have great alternative WYSIWYG options. I don't know, I don't have one.

But you're also talking about doing a mass conversion of what people are already using in favor of a new profile which could be one of any number of settings. It's a lighter lift to just say hey, you can tack this LUT on to what you're already doing.

I'd rather spend the energy converting people from s-log3 to s-log2 if I were going to proselytize. Maybe then Sony would be sure to keep offering it going forward.

 

[Doug Jensen]

I prefer s-log2 to s-log3

I agree completely. I was a strong proponent of S-LOG2 for many years. Go back and see my old posts. A great thing about shooting 16-bit RAW with my F55 and R7 was that I could decode the RAW footage as S-LOG2 or S-LOG3. S-LOG2 always looked superior in Resolve. But once Sony stopped putting S-LOG2 on the new cameras I stopped beating the drum for it. What's the point if the option no longer exists on the cinema cameras? If the mirrorless cameras still have it, that is what I'd use in a heartbeat over S-LOG3.

But this thread and my LUTs have nothing to do with S-LOG3. My quest is to come up with a nearly WYSIWYG workflow for the FX6 that does not involve Resolve. My horrific LUTs achieve that.

 

[Bassman2003]

Sorry for adding more confusion. I do not know how similar or different the A7sIII and the FX6 are from a menu/PP perspective. I did state this in my earlier post though. If they are quite different then disregard and I apologize. I can only guess that the A7sIII menu structure would be similar on the A1 for comparison.

All I was saying was that S-Cinetone is comprised of two parts in the A7sIII - gamma and color. The gamma seems better than the color. So what was suggested is to keep the gamma set to S-Cinetone and choose another color mode. I picked "Movie" which is very similar or the same as PP off. The Gerald Undone video I linked shows all of the color modes and they are quite different.

 

[Doug Jensen]

Unfortunately, the paint menus/options on the FX6 have virtually no similarities with the menus/options on the mirrorless cameras. Some changes can be made, but probably not like you assume. That's why I asked for specific changes.

 

[Bassman2003]

Sorry Doug. I was not questioning, but will back away from the conversation.

 

[Doug Jensen]

Nothing wrong with asking questions, but I just assume people posting on a thread about FX6 would have first-hand knowledge of that camera. I wasn't sure if you did or not when I aksed you for more info. I really wanted to hear if you had something I missed about the camera. Sounds like not, and that is fine.

I am entirely open to the idea of better/alternative solutions to the problem I'm trying to solve with the FX6, but people just saying genereic stuff like "make a LUT" or "change the paint menus" is useless to everyone unless details are provided to go along with it.

All I'm asking from the naysayers is to be specific about THEIR recommendations. That's all.

 

[Alex H.]

Alright, folks. That’s enough pissing in the pool. Posts have been deleted. This will be the only warning.

 

[drboffa]

Some more screen grabs from LUT testing. This is footage from a real shooting scenario that isn't uncommon for some of my work (a poorly lit training hall where I have zero control over the lighting and limited options in terms of where I can position myself. As before, the images are NO LUT and then Doug's LC LUT (the HC is too strong for me so I'm not including it). Also as before, there are no other corrections aside from adding the LUT. FWIW, this was in FCP as opposed to Davinci (which was what I used for the other test).

BUT: note that these images are from the a7Siii, not the FX6 (which was the previous test).

I'd still make tweaks to the images, but in my view the LUT is a significant improvement over the stock S-Cinetone look.

 

[Doug Jensen]

alright, folks. That’s enough pissing in the pool. Posts have been deleted. This will be the only warning.

thank you.

 

[Doug Jensen]

I'd still make tweaks to the images, but in my view the LUT is a significant improvement over the stock S-Cinetone look.

Thanks for posting the examples. I agree with that it is big improvement, and there is still room for fine-tune if someone had the time and was inclined to do so. That's exactly what I intended with the LUTs.

BUT: note that these images are from the a7Siii, not the FX6 (which was the previous test).

Great. It is good to see some non-FX6 examples. I have no reason to think that S-CINETONE on one camera wouldn't be virtually the same on another camera, so the LUTs should work either way. I think you have proven that.

What I was trying to get across earlier is that if someone suggests making a MLUT or different Scene File (not S-CINETONE), then all bets are off between different midels because various Sony camras do not share the same paint menus and other capabilities. In other words, S-LOG or S-CINETONE are the only two shooting modes you can expect to be consistent between camera models. So, if you want to create something that looks different, then you better know what camera you are talking about because they are not all the same. And painting the FX6 is like trying to run a hundred meter dash with your shoe laces tied together.

BTW, if I had an FX9 I'd never use S-CINETONE or S-LOG becuase there are beter options onboard that camera. It is one of the major advantages of the FX9 over the FX6. But I still choose the FX6 for all the other reasons it beats the FX9. No camera is pefect.

 

[AmbiSonde]

I have created a series of MLUTs aka PPLUTs aka Custom LUTs if anyone is interested. These are compatible with any Sony camera which allows uploading of LUTs. You can use them to monitor or bake for quick turnaround.

I have created Alexa 709, Varicam 709, Sony Venice S709, Canon WDR with Alexa 709 gamut, just added the Amira 709 and a film emulation LUT. I've made MLUT versions and SLog3 LUTs for grading. I'll add others e.g. false colour LUT in due course available free via direct message, I'll give you a DL link.

 

[cyvideo]

First of all, I have never found a LUT that I could just drop on S-LOG3 footage and mostly walk away. For me. S-LOG3 always requires too much secondary grading to look good. And to make matters worse, every individual clip needs it's own attention. I can't just grade one clip and apply that grade to similar clips and expect them all to look good. Too much effort.

If someone has a S-LOG3 LUT that can do the same thing, I'd love to see it.

I'm not saying I have an S-LOG3 Cine LUT that does the same. Like you, Doug, I've struggled to find an S-LOG3 Cine LUT that meets my "general look" requirement. Because of that, some time ago I thought I'll build my own S-LOG3 to Rec 709 LUT that is as technically as correct as I can get it but all the while giving me a pleasant look on the majority of LOG footage with the smoothest roll-off and highlight detail retention I could get. Check the hair on the Digital LAD / Scopes image. The best retention I could get was to keep my hottest image levels at no more than 85%.

Seeing as Sony's SLOG3 is based off Kodak's original Cineon developments, I thought I'd start there. These developments were based on practices that were developed by Eastman Kodak Company and is often referred to as the CINEON calibration aim.

So using Kodak's reference Digital LAD image as the basis for my own S-LOG3 to 709 LUT I started to dig in. The reason for using The Digital LAD image is that it is the base reference image for Cineon grading. As Sony's S-LOG3, going by their own documentation is based off Cneon:

S_Log3 Cine is designed for more like pure log workflow. Color space is similar to negative film scan which is used for TV production, film out and digital cinema. Color reproduction is designed slightly wider than DCI-P3 to provide ample room for grading. Tone curve is more like pure log encoding characteristics, preserving more tonal gradations in the blacks, and has good compatibility with Cineon workflow.

So using the Digital LAD image I tweaked an S-LOG3 grade to be as close to 100% accurate and true on the scopes. See the Digital LAD / scopes image below. Furthermore, I found from a "look" POV I wanted to tweak the white and grey points. What I came up with I've now used frequently on a variety of S-LOG3 image from most of Sony's camera that can shoot S-LOG3. A7 through to FX9. Generally speaking, no one has knocked the looks from this home-brewed S-LOG3 to 709 LUT. Bear in mind, it is purely a technical LUT from my POV. If I need a different stylized "look", well, then I will tweak warm, color biases and levels to suit on a couple of proceeding LUTs. This LUT was also made with approximately a one-stop over exposure in mind to Sony's recommended peak of 61%. So basically S-LOG3 peaks of around 70-73%. In the mid-ranges, 10 IRE is about one stop. Like with any footage, quite often you have to compensate for WB and exposure errors. All of these can of course be compensated for on a couple of proceeding LUTs.

Image #1 is my 709 LUT applied to the reference Kodak Digital LAD image after the LUT was created. Vectors and chroma levels are close to 100% accurate. Likewise, luminance levels to my liking.

Image #2 is just a collection of images to give people an idea of how this LAD SLOG3 709 holds up. Some of those images have been warmed up and stylized a little... as you do.

Kodak Cineon

https://www.kodak.com/content/produ...gital-Recorder-Calibration-and-Aims-H-387.pdf

Sony S-LOG documentation

https://pro.sony/s3/cms-static-conte...7494271406.pdf

Incidentally, I sometimes do a CST from S-LOG3 to S-LOG2 as I have some LUTs that I have from the more frequent S-LOG2 grades from earlier times. Generally speaking though, I prefer to CSTs at the best of times over LUTs

Chris Young

Image #1


Image #2

 

[AmbiSonde]

Having created a series of MLUTs such as Alexa, Varicam, Venice none of them offer anything over what S-Cinetone + Your Choice of Gamut in cameras like the FX3/30 already have. This says a lot to how well engineered the S-Cinetone gamma is. Unless you need to match the Alexa, Varicam and Venice with quick turnaround files SooC then you are better off shooting SLog3 and using the grading versions of the LUTs in my LUT Pack.

What might be better are creative style MLUTs which emulate certain popular looks with sat roll off, split toning and such. I might work on a few in the coming days.

I repeat again, there's little difference between any of the Gamut choices Sony has given, there's nothing trick about any of the gamuts just simple primary hue and saturation adjustments which can be colour warped to match very quickly so which ever you choose there's no technical benefit despite what your favourite youtuber might say.

FX6 and FX9 owners are probably the only ones who should be interested in the technical MLUTs, the S709 + REC709 gamut which is S-Cinetone without the naff colours, the Alexa MLUT SooC looks good too. Both have great roll offs and natural colours which is all you need for a quick turnaround profile.

All credit to Ben Turley aka camermanben for LUTCalc.