Slog must not be as good as they claim

Duke M. said:
If S-log increases the cameras capability from 12 stops to 13.5 stops and you are shooting with the entire scene lit within 12 stops you won't see much if any difference in the final product. I would find it hard to justify S-log in a studio environment. (That may just be me and my expectations.)
Click to expand...

actually, personally i think you would still see the difference. the extra amount of highlight protect offers a better highlight rolloff. so instead of your highlights bunching up at that 11-12th stop, once you breach that 13th stop it starts rolling in a very gradual way, giving that ever so coveted film like look. that's one of the reasons why film, looks like film. it's the immense amount of DR giving you THAT look. that's one of the things hollywood dp's look at first. how do the highlights roll off? i've graded plenty of shots from Alexa C log, and compared to it's 709 lut, i see immense differences. but my belief is it's harder to tell the difference between a 10 stop camera and a 11.5 stop camera. it's really when you start breaking into film DR it whole heartily makes a visual difference.


to everybody else, s log is a gamma curve, and it leaves it as just that, and leaves the existing color very neutral. 10 bit 422 or 10 bit 444 gives it all it's color information, both are better than the native xdcam anyday. but i also believe the f3 in general uses very a very similar color matrix as the f35, so I find the color rendition very natural. if you want punchier, dial in more saturation. if u didn't find the f3 vegas s log test punchier enough in colors, that's something to take up with the 3 dp's in my color suite telling me not to dial any additional saturation in. color can be manipulated, dynamic range will always be baked in. until somebody figures that one out too...
 
If you want to see what "contrasty" slog looks like, check out "30 minutes or less" trailer.

Shot on alexa and properly timed to look contrasty and rich in color.

You aren't going to find the "dslr" look here. That's not what it captures. But you can grade to that if you wish. Or you can keep the image natural and muted.
 
Well I think by now you know that there are others that are still waiting for images that go from Black with detail through whites with detail from the Slog as you get without Slog.
What I have notice after reading what you guys that have had the opportunity use the Slog is that you were trying to push the white so far that you lost the blacks.
You see in my time ASA and now ISO meant in negative film that you measure the darkest area that you wanted detail. On positive (like video) you measure your highlights were you want detail. How many DoP nowadays use a light meter if not to set exposure at least to measure actual contrast between shadows and highlights? This camera without Slog has such a tremendous latitude that Slog's extra 2 or so stops will only be needed on extreme conditions. If used and edited correctly I think it will be a great tool, but what I have seen is mostly testing on pushing the highlights to the limit where you can never recover the Blacks.
I think it was one of Sony's reps that said that on Slog you shoot for detail on the highlights. If done that way I am sure that you could easily recover the blacks. (That is what causes the milky look)
My 3 cents.
 
I really have no idea what you are talking about, if you look at the f3 DR step chart, the f3 retains more information in the low end than the top end, even with s log. it retains a lot of shadow detail, even more so than film does. and highlight wise, it's probably a stop less than the Alexa, give or take a little bit. so you can easily maintain your shadow detail and highlight detail if you expose it right, leave it "flat' or easily clip the highlights and bring down the low end for a high con look, the choice is yours. but the point is, you HAVE that choice. when the information is gone, it's gone. everything you have been talking about has been more aesthetic taste than anything else, and in the end all i can recommend is not let any of us color your footage :)

personally after seeing years of "looks" my tastes are varied, as are a lot of seasoned DP's and colorists. just like how a film critic has a way difference sense of what is a good movie to them than to you these days. but the goal and point has always been to emulate film, the gold standard. our basis for that are the movies we watch that come out of hollywood that are shot on film. and as of late, color timing has done a great job in maintaining both ends of detail using all the dynamic range that is available to them, and using a lot of dual tone lighting. everything you've seen so far has just been people getting their feet wet with it. If you still don't like what comes out of it, I suggest d/l those sample stills and coloring it yourself to see if you can get results you want. if not, than by all means, stay on xdcam 709. nobody is stopping you.
 
Douglas Villalba said:
How many DoP nowadays use a light meter if not to set exposure at least to measure actual contrast between shadows and highlights? .
Click to expand...

Doesn't make much sense anymore - this is 2011- most guys have a waveform display in the monitor, that is much more useful as a light meter,if you know what you are looking at and doing.
Then there is false color and range error metering, build in every self respecting on camera monitor.

There is no excuse anymore. If you manage to get bad exposure (over or under or skin tones) with all those great tool today, something went really wrong.

Frank
 
That is the general video consensus. However a DP starts preparing the set lighting before the camera gets setup. I am sure that most film DPs even if shooting video do it this way. Just look at zacuto's shootout video.
Edited: Also why do they put a film plane mark if you can focus in camera through a "self respecting on camera monitor"
 
Last edited:
Douglas Villalba said:
Any movie colorist in the crowd that can backup with samples? I can't remember any award winning movie with a milky look. Mostly the blacks are crushed.
Click to expand...

ever just think it might be your monitor? :)

typically blacks are where they are supposed to be, not brought down to the point where you lose all detail. uncalibrated consumer monitors and push the blacks back up, and there's infamous gamma bugs too. Hollywood films go through intense color management where they do their best to keep the print looking the same end to end. as best they can. from the big screen, to blu ray. but even a bad projection, or un-calibrated tv panel at home can "milk out the blacks"
 
If you want to see different types of grading in "one" film, I suggest you get "Paris Je t'aime". Different directors and DP's went for different looks. Specially look for Gus Van Sant's work, he doesn't crush the blacks.

Gus Van Sant's Short (view the grading in the interiors)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCcDN8HifvA&feature=related

Compare it to wes craven's short (not very good quality this one)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvq2dF6Mj1o&feature=related

Those are 2 of the worse shorts in the film in terms of story, in my opinion. Because of that, here's one of my favourites from the same film :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bfXm7_3le4&feature=related
 
Last edited:
SPZ said:
If you want to see different types of grading in "one" film, I suggest you get "Paris Je t'aime". Different directors and DP's went for different looks. Specially look for Gus Van Sant's work, he doesn't crush the blacks.

Gus Van Sant's Short (view the grading in the interiors)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCcDN8HifvA&feature=related

Compare it to wes craven's short (not very good quality this one)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvq2dF6Mj1o&feature=related

Those are 2 of the worse shorts in the film in terms of story, in my opinion. Because of that, here's one of my favourites from the same film :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bfXm7_3le4&feature=related
Click to expand...
That is what I was talking about when I said European, the norther states and Canada.
However those movies look misty but not milky. What little I saw of the links you posted I could see blacks with detail. I wouldn't say it is flat because flat implies no different of light ratios, but it is low contrast.
 
badlaa said:
I just love misty and milky, something must be wrong with me :P ...but afterall I'm european :)
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with that. I lived in New England, Connecticut to be exact and you get use to the misty look.
Remember when every movie that came out had that faded blue jeans color (Blue Bleach)? It must be time for milky.
Look at this video. It is just a notch over exposed, with a lot of meet to work with. http://vimeo.com/groups/pmwf3/videos/27639236
 
Oh I really like that one, low contrast in a good way and look at those skin tones. Just lovely.
 
Douglas Villalba said:
However a DP starts preparing the set lighting before the camera gets setup. I am sure that most film DPs even if shooting video do it this way. Just look at zacuto's shootout video.
Edited: Also why do they put a film plane mark if you can focus in camera through a "self respecting on camera monitor"
Click to expand...

Different DPs have different workflows, I saw both.

And yeah, the film plane mark makes sense when you shooting film, for video with a good peaking monitor and a focus disc with marks it makes less sense.
I would even say, that peaking in a monitor can be more precise when you shoot wide open (what you should not do normally), since actors are usually not hitting their marks within 1.5 inch precision.

As the whole industry is in the middle of a revolution, a lot of the old rituals and workflows are changing to new rituals and workflows in the moment.

Exciting times.
 
Is there a web site where we can post all these countless clips of Girlfriends and Wives enduring our camera tests?
If not, there ought to be one.
Very nice footage though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top