S-Log on the FS100

Did some tests, not nearly as thorough as the one I did yesterday, but I'm too lazy to re-do it. Take it for what you will. Did G-LogA and ABNorm since those are the two profiles that I personally like best out of all the ones I've tried. GLOG-A has a very very blue/green tint to it. If there's a way to get rid of that without screwing up skintones it'd be perfect. Grades nicely though =)

Please excuse the ugly (and hairy) test subject. I didn't have another person to use and only after the tests were done realized I could have just used a mirror =p

TIFF's here: http://www.mediafire.com/?v6etrprc6yvztja
 
Okay, did another test. Can be seen here: http://vimeo.com/32609576

Tested ABNorm, GLOG A, GC 1, and GC 2

Subject was lit by a single Arri 650W camera left. This was the only light source. Camera was white balanced to 3100K. Only grading was lift/gama/gain, WB Correction, and if needed, saturation.

Really liked how GLOG A and GC 1 graded. However, I didn't like that they were so incredibly cyan/green to start off with. Is there any way to get them closer to faithful color without screwing up everything else? It's fine when shooting at 0db but I feel like correcting the white balance to such a degree when shooting at higher gain could provide some issues in post. GC 2 got completely screwed up, probably because I kept the same exposure over all of the profiles. So, not the best test in the world ><

Just figured I'd contribute =)

Edit: Been having issues with vimeo... lately all the videos I upload are coming out rather fuzzy. Here's a youtube alternate link until I figure out the issue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzHV_Z8FpcA&hd=1

Edit2: Is it just me... on second glance my footage just looks wrong. Even pre-grade. Colors look wonky. I've noticed this even shooting with just daylight... I know it's not the picture profiles, quadruple checked them... Any ideas what other setting in the camera I could have screwed up? Or am I just being paranoid and does it look fine
 
Last edited:
I've noticed that my uploaded video's are coming out much darker after Vimeo converts them than what I uploaded. This seems to have just started happening the last few uploads.

Michael Solomon said:
Okay, did another test. Can be seen here: http://vimeo.com/32609576

Tested ABNorm, GLOG A, GC 1, and GC 2

Subject was lit by a single Arri 650W camera left. This was the only light source. Camera was white balanced to 3100K. Only grading was lift/gama/gain, WB Correction, and if needed, saturation.

Really liked how GLOG A and GC 1 graded. However, I didn't like that they were so incredibly cyan/green to start off with. Is there any way to get them closer to faithful color without screwing up everything else? It's fine when shooting at 0db but I feel like correcting the white balance to such a degree when shooting at higher gain could provide some issues in post. GC 2 got completely screwed up, probably because I kept the same exposure over all of the profiles. So, not the best test in the world ><

Just figured I'd contribute =)

Edit: Been having issues with vimeo... lately all the videos I upload are coming out rather fuzzy. Here's a youtube alternate link until I figure out the issue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzHV_Z8FpcA&hd=1

Edit2: Is it just me... on second glance my footage just looks wrong. Even pre-grade. Colors look wonky. I've noticed this even shooting with just daylight... I know it's not the picture profiles, quadruple checked them... Any ideas what other setting in the camera I could have screwed up? Or am I just being paranoid and does it look fine
Click to expand...
 
does look somewhat sub-optimal on both, Vimeo looking better tho... compression and/or bit depth issues on upload perhaps?

perhaps pull high quality stills from your grade session and post those?

and thanks for putting in the effort

d
 
Same upload settings I've been using for a while. Affected video from the 5D as well

720, 8 bit target, 10 bit max, vbr 2 pass, render at maximum depth, h.264
 
I'm following this forum quite some time and now is a time to practice with brand new fs100. It is a new world to me so don't be very condemning. No proper lighting was used, just a quick test. WB indoors, gain between 9 to 18. Exposed on face. I think that flatter style pps need to be little underexposed then others? Must do some more testing to get it right.
One big suprise was the Glog A, witch actually looks very green and ungly on cameras lcd but grades very nicely. Another pp I liked was the AB Range.
Need to practice exposuring correctly - that zebras at level 100 are gone and histogram clippings? And another thing.. why the hell I can't increase/decrease gain with steps like I was used to with dslrs :)

http://vimeo.com/32959646 pw: fs100pptest
 
Welcome asko! Thanks for your test- nice work. I have mostly used AB Range which I like but see that I really should give GLog a chance. I'm yet to see anyone get good results with the varicam setting...

Most people agree that the FS100 likes to be underexposed a tad. I'm still working at my exposure skill! Lately I have been working with a monitor with false colour which really helps so I can't really advise you best practise with just the FS100's display.

It's a pity the FS100 just has one zebra. The AF100 has two so you can set one to 70% for skin and one for 100% for highlights. Oh well. You could set the zebra on the fs100 to 70% and check the histogram for clipping?

Yes the gain thing is a pain. You have to go into the menu to change the gain by changing one of the gain presets. There is one trick that you might have read about on here which is setting the auto gain to have a maximum of 0db so that it becomes like a fourth preset of 0db.
 
Superwhites and the S / G Log Profiles

I've shot with G-LOG and the Abel Cinestyles on the FS100 and when looking at the scopes I notice that the luminance stops at or near IRE 100. I also observe this in the FS100's own histogram. However, I know the FS100 can record to 110 IRE. When using some of the other 'non log' profiles Ive seen this. Since we have to apply a reverse LUT and grade these LOG type profiles anyway, aren't we limiting valuable information if we set limits to 100? And how would I go about modifying the profiles to give me the same performance but give me up to 110 IRE and limit it near there?

Thanks for this great thread, thanks to postmaster (Frank) for providing these as well as all the other expert feedback!
 
It records to 110 but it sure can get ugly up there...

By the way I shot my own test today of G-Log and some of the others Frank made. http://vimeo.com/33935129

Sorry about the subject; I was a mess. lol

Interestingly the G-Logs look very green but grade fine. It's weird. I prefer G-Log A to B for grading but B works well too. I haven't checked outdoors yet; this was indoors only under moderate LED light. I think the G-Log definitely gives more latitude. To see what a shot might look like graded just run a standard PP first for the look. Like all "flat" styles it will look lousy until graded, and unfortunately there's no way to apply a LUT for viewing with the FS100, obviously.
 
Last edited:
So the question is does G- Log a, really retain more info in the picture to push it in post? Seems to us that g- log a, gets very noisy in the blacks and shadows once corrected or is it just us? Going off of all your tests and pics you all have put up. we are very confused whether or not this is the best way to go for better color grading in post, so far we like g -log a, but not sure what to think of it. I know sounds retarded but bare with us, lol hanks in advance guys =)
 
I guess most of you guys have seen Philip Blooms x-mas shootout - if not, you can watch it here: http://philipbloom.net/2011/12/28/christmas-shootout/

Philip used my G-LOG A profile on the FS100.

As you all know, the G-LOG profiles I made for grading, instead to use them out of the box.
I´m working on a workflow in the moment, that includes a G-LTU, to get the bet out of the profiles.

I wanted to know, how close I can match the C300 LOG-C material and FS100 G-LOG material.
So I tried my prototype workflow on the material that Philip shot.
Keep in mind, that the pictures where heavily compressed in camera, than a second time for output from the timeline.
I downloaded the mp4 file from Vimeo, imported it into Premiere, and than exported the frames as JPEG.
Those JPEGs are imported here, and I don´t know if WordPress does some more “magic” to them.
So take those pics with a grain of salt, but I think you get the idea.

Check it out: http://frankglencairn.wordpress.com...r-correction-of-philip-blooms-x-mas-shootout/

Frank
 
NICE worries over =)
Postmaster said:
I guess most of you guys have seen Philip Blooms x-mas shootout - if not, you can watch it here: http://philipbloom.net/2011/12/28/christmas-shootout/

Philip used my G-LOG A profile on the FS100.

As you all know, the G-LOG profiles I made for grading, instead to use them out of the box.
I´m working on a workflow in the moment, that includes a G-LTU, to get the bet out of the profiles.

I wanted to know, how close I can match the C300 LOG-C material and FS100 G-LOG material.
So I tried my prototype workflow on the material that Philip shot.
Keep in mind, that the pictures where heavily compressed in camera, than a second time for output from the timeline.
I downloaded the mp4 file from Vimeo, imported it into Premiere, and than exported the frames as JPEG.
Those JPEGs are imported here, and I don´t know if WordPress does some more “magic” to them.
So take those pics with a grain of salt, but I think you get the idea.

Check it out: http://frankglencairn.wordpress.com...r-correction-of-philip-blooms-x-mas-shootout/

Frank
Click to expand...
 
Frank - I meant to congratulate you when I saw the shootout the other day. That's pretty cool to invent the default camera setting used by a big dawg like Philip Bloom. Nice work!
 
Very cool Frank, your doing all us FS100 users a great deal of work, for that, we thank-you.
 
It's been interesting to read the feedback from Mr Bloom's tests.

Like most people here, I'm delighted with the output of the FS100 in comparison to the F3 thanks to your PP. The FS100, like the PDX-10, is a camera that's suffered from some bad PR in the past whilst being a truly excellent tool. Whilst the standard image is great, the G-Log image is something else.

It's an image rich with information, detail and therefore possibilities. Flexible and adaptable.

That's testament to your hard work, insight and determination to get the very best from your resources. The community salutes you, sir.

There should be a 'buy a virtual beer for Frank' button on your recipe page, so we as a whole can contribute to your collection of excellent glass. Or something. ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top