SLog2: internal codec test

[rotierney]

I read this from your other post which Sony stated to you: "Basically, for exposure, you need to adjust Zebra down to 48% (nominal 50% would be OK), otherwise the highlights will blow out and defeat the purpose of SLog."

Hey Ro, what did you set your Zebras to? Correct me if I'm wrong, but setting your Zebras low will make you UNDER expose, correct? I seem to notice that under exposing, especially in low light causes a lot of noise, but I need to test it more.

But great test Ro, and curious as to your Zebra settings.

I have been doing some extensive testing and have found that exposing roughly the same as if it was non SLog seems to work best. I set my zebras to 90 just to be safe. I have calibrated my light meter (Sekonic L-478D) to the SLog-2 and it tells me to expose almost 2 stops less than a normal profile such as PP4 (it sees middle grey at 32 IRE). This causes a lot of blotchy noise in shadows when you lift it up in the grade.

The bottom line is expose as normal but if you have a lot of highlight detail underexpose by a half to full stop. It really depends on the scene and finding a balance between blown highlights and nasty shadow noise.

 

[rotierney]

What's your workflow with Premiere and Resolve since Resolve doesn't support AVCHD footage? Do you transcode to another format for it?

I export from Premiere to uncompressed quicktime 8 bit 422 and then use scene cut detention inside resolve to split into clips. Works fine as long as you have no cross dissolves.

 

[SKYLIKE]

There is a lot of not knowing around. The benefit of slog2 is that grey is around 32ire and u have that huge highlight room. U have to set ur zebras right or expose 2 stops under otherwise slog2 is senseless. Yeah shadows are noisy and so on it its not slog2s fault, its codecs fault. When u expose like 709 or cinegamma then use 709 or cinegamma. Slog2 is absolute senseless when u are exposing wrong. It will make ur picture look worse and ur 500 bucks for the upgrade were senseless too.

 

[digger]

re: picture profile

re: picture profile

There is a lot of not knowing around. The benefit of slog2 is that grey is around 32ire and u have that huge highlight room. U have to set ur zebras right or expose 2 stops under otherwise slog2 is senseless. Yeah shadows are noisy and so on it its not slog2s fault, its codecs fault. When u expose like 709 or cinegamma then use 709 or cinegamma. Slog2 is absolute senseless when u are exposing wrong. It will make ur picture look worse and ur 500 bucks for the upgrade were senseless too.

Which picture profile are you using for this s-log2 test?

 

[S.Blanchardon]

S-Log2 is an anti- picture profile if we could say it that way.

It's PP7 on the upgraded FS700 though.

 

[Razz16mm]

If you want clean shadows, S-log is not the way to get them. S-log compresses the bottom 4 stops of the camera's DR into the range between 0-10 IRE on a scope if you expose it to retain highlights. There is nothing left to recover. You are in essence trading clean shadow detail for highlight detail and a nice film like roll off at the top. You have to let the shadows go with this one.

 

[cuervo]

I really gotta wonder if you guys with all this Slog2 "wisdom" have actually used the 8-bit slog2 on the FS700, because you, clearly don't understand how this is working. I don't doubt your knowledge of Slog2 theory and function on other cameras. But, this FS700 is definitely a different animal.

 

[Marino215]

I really gotta wonder if you guys with all this Slog2 "wisdom" have actually used the 8-bit slog2 on the FS700, because you, clearly don't understand how this is working. I don't doubt your knowledge of Slog2 theory and function on other cameras. But, this FS700 is definitely a different animal.

I have zero wisdom regarding the new S-log profile. Sometimes it looks good and sometimes it doesn't. I'm getting more familiar with each use but with natural light and the way it changes it's been tricky for me. Your previous advice here has got me on the right track however with the kit lens I find it rough sometimes in the shadows. The "auto mode" is giving me some type of parameter to go by so hopefully soon I'll be able to nail it. Appreciate the advice here anything you think we should know please share. Thanks

 

[mainstreetprod]

I have been doing some extensive testing and have found that exposing roughly the same as if it was non SLog seems to work best. I set my zebras to 90 just to be safe. I have calibrated my light meter (Sekonic L-478D) to the SLog-2 and it tells me to expose almost 2 stops less than a normal profile such as PP4 (it sees middle grey at 32 IRE). This causes a lot of blotchy noise in shadows when you lift it up in the grade.

The bottom line is expose as normal but if you have a lot of highlight detail underexpose by a half to full stop. It really depends on the scene and finding a balance between blown highlights and nasty shadow noise.

I've been following this conversation in which several people say to underexpose two stops and wonder if they even have the update. I strictly use the zebras, set as I normally set them at 95%, and find myself exposing normally most of the time. So far I haven't had ANY blown out highlights, on footage where normally they would have.

I really gotta wonder if you guys with all this Slog2 "wisdom" have actually used the 8-bit slog2 on the FS700, because you, clearly don't understand how this is working. I don't doubt your knowledge of Slog2 theory and function on other cameras. But, this FS700 is definitely a different animal.

What he said.^