FS7: Slog2 or 3

L

LennyLevy

Veteran
I have a shoot coming up with actors and dancers and it will all be shot outdoors in locations that I didn't choose. They are often under lots of tall trees so there is lots of mottled shade and sunlight and occasional patches of bright sun. In the worst scene,much of the background is getting direct sun and has both light green foliage and lots of tall dried out grasses that are bright as hell. Likewise the ground around and behind us is often dirt and dried (i.e. bright) grasses , so the spots that the sun hits are quite bright

We will always be shooting backlit but its very low budget and I will be straining to get as much fill in as I can. I don't think even an 8x8 ultra bounce will give us much under the tress so I'm planning to use a combination of Astra lights and hopefully a couple of 400 Jokers off a genny. My problem is not making the people look good as their light will be even shade ( as long as I don't fill too harshly). However The bright background patches are not attractive at all.

I'll be shooting Slog on an FS7 and have always used Slog3 in the past. However I'm wondering if I will get better highlight control with Slog 2?

I plan to shoot some tests tomorrow but would love any input you guys have. Will I also get better highlight control if I do not overexpose at EI 650 or500 as I typically would since I don't really have a lot of shadow areas- mostly even shade and bright sun behind and sometimes hitting the backs of heads. What EI would you suggest - I don't want noise either?

( I tested Slog3 recently at EI 650, 1200 and 2000 and frankly didn't see a lot of difference in the highlight handling.

Thanks for your help.
 
I agree in theory, just saying I didn't see it on the video. It might be that it was so far overexposed that it made little difference? Maybe I didn't post it correctly yet since I was only looking in Catalyst Browse and adjusting exposure in that program instead of properly in Resolve using LUT's designed for different exposures. Any ideas about Slog2 or 3?

Looking on the waveform ( again CB) I can see that the highlights hit a flat clip and even on the lower exposures they remain that way. Kind of odd too me frankly and I suspect I might be doing something wrong in Post but i don't know what if anything. I don' usually do my own post in Slog so its new territory despite how long I've had the camera. Its about time I get this together though.
 
Last edited:
In either case, there should be those nearly 2 stops of a difference in headroom which is a lot. Honestly, I feel like I have to answer the Slog2 vs Slog3 question myself. One thing that I can't stress enough is that there are very very few people who can grade Slog well. Some may disagree but I think Slog2 is slightly harder to grade so for me that might be the deciding factor.
 
I almost always use S-LOG2 (or RAW) when I'm shooting outdoors in situations where I'll have uncontrolled highlights. One advantage of shooting RAW is that you can grade it as S-LOG2 or S-LOG3 in post to compare the results and I usually like the results I get outdoors (grading the same footage two ways) with S-LOG2 better. S-LOG3 clips at 94 IRE and I've found that to be a limiting factor sometimes. For me S-LOG2 is simply safer; it's just as easy to grade as S-LOG3; and even when clipping highlights is not a risk I can still usually grade S-LOG2 and S-LOG3 to look almost the same anyway. Your instincts to consider using S-LOG2 are correct. https://vimeo.com/ondemand/resolve
 
Just stick with SLOG3 and Sgamut3.cine, it's easier to get great results in the grade. The difference between SLOG2 and SLOG3 in highlights/shadows isn't significant enough to worry about, so I'd recommend going with the one that's going to be easier to work with in post - and that's SLOG3 and Sgamut3.cine.
 
Why do you say S-LOG3 is easier? In my experience they are both take exactly the same amount of effort. Why is one harder than the other for you to deal with?

BTW, if someone clips specular highlights, back-lit hair, sides of faces, etc. at 94 IRE with S-LOG3 there's no getting it back in post.
 
Greg, what do you mean exactly when you say Slog2 is harder to grade. I've heard this many times so I'm not arguing with you just wondering what this means in practice.
I won't be grading this , the editor will be and I believe she is working in Premiere not Resolve. Will that make a difference?

I am concerned abut the clipping that Doug mentioned since that's what I seem to see in my tests , but as I mentioned I need to look at them more carefully
 
You should strongly recommend to your editor that she grade in Resolve or else not shoot S-LOG at all. There is a quite big difference between the two programs and shortcuts should not be taken when working with S-LOG --assuming that people reallly care about the final output rather than saving a few minutes on the workflow. I don't understand why people want the benefits of S-LOG but then hobble it without a proper grade.
 
In my experience, slog-3 is more intuitive in the post-color work (reds and such). Slog-2 has a bit more DR. What's more important for you?

I often choose slog-2 over slog-3, simply because I am familiar with how to grade slog-2, specially in ACES workflow. Plus, I use the extra DR to roll into highlights in post. Below is a little test I did to map the slog-2 curve into false color in 2-stop increments. I use the top two stops to roll into the highlights and for specular highlights, then the next 4 stops below that for skintones, then below that we get into shadows and noise reduction territory. I actually rate the FS7 as 10 stops in slog-2, but can be pushed to 12 stops with noise reduction. But that is a personal approach, your mileage may vary.

IMG_5500.jpg
 
I can't believe people are clipping H/Ls on the FS7. There's absolutely no reason for this. Use the WFM. Use the histogram. Use zebras. Use an external monitor. Just don't rely on a crappy monitor LUT.

Slog 3 is simple and forgivable. Slog 2 has better highlight roll off. Shoot ISO2000 outside for best H/Ls in SLog3. Don't use LEDs, use a daylight reflector kit. Simple.
 
Turns out I was wrong about the highlights clipping when I dropped from EI500 to 1250, so I'm no longer as freaked out . It never did make sense. I had only looked briefly at my images in Catalyst Browse and need to spend some more time testing in post. I plan to do some shooting tests tomorrow with an 8x8 ultra bounce (also comparing SLog2 and 3) but its hard to get a lot of fill while under the trees. I'll get that figured out and LED's may still be very helpful . Don't knock it if you haven't tried it. I some cases batteries are the only answer.
 
Liam Hall said:
I can't believe people are clipping H/Ls on the FS7.
Click to expand...

Setting exposure has very little to do with it. Clipping is absolutely a concern with ANY camera when you have specular highlights, backlit hair in the sun, sparkling water, sun low on the horizon at sunset, etc. No matter how much dynamic range a camera has you're going to max it out at some point when you wisely give exposure priority to the main subject. And in my experience, S-LOG2, because it doesn't clip until 107% (or maybe 109%??), looks better than S-LOG3 (which clips at 94%) when there are uncontrolled highlights. If you try to keep those highlights under control you'll be under-exposing the main subject. Clipping is unavoidable in some situations whether someone wants to believe it or not. This isn't just some theory or gut feeling. I've actually done the head to head testing and my advice is to shoot S-LOG2 in outdoors daylight whenever there will be bright highlights. What's the harm?? S-LOG2 is every bit as easy to grade as S-LOG3 so why not use it. That's why we have more than one S-LOG.
 
Just thinking for a moment about the lighting conditions. It sounds like a good location for a couple of 12K's through silk to bring up your fill level...
But... Have you considered using a few 4x4 mirror reflectors? Not as a source of direct light on your subjects, but as a way to 'move' the sun to where you can actually use it (aim them to bounce light from a nearby clearing to illuminate bead boards or foamcores near camera - or through a 12x12 silk if they're behind camera.) The amount of light they can provide is pretty stunning. Of course this really only works on a sunny day.
 
Thanks for the idea.
I have thought of that and have a background as a gaffer so all those choices are very clear to me, but my manpower is limited , and so is my time per shot. Need to move fast with simple setups. This location also is too large a shaded area to get a good bite off the sun in a useable way.
 
Understood completely...
One other thought - depending on the foliage canopy and time of day, the little pinspots of sun can sometimes be as ugly as they are an exposure problem. If the look would be appropriate would you consider some softening with pro-mist (or going old-school with Harrison fractional double fog) filters - which might make the extreme highlights a bit more pleasing to begin with?
 
Tiffen Soft/FX man, best filter ever made. Back in the dark ages of Betacam a secret 1/2 Soft/FX series 9 lived on my lens full-time and everybody wondered why my camera looked so nice compared to all the others. Great highlight flares and just the right amount of softening to take the "video" edge off.
 
Ha - I still have my old Tiffen Double fogs though I haven't used them in many years. I have ProMist 1/8 and 1/4 and also softFX 1/2 and have thought about testing those for that very reason, Thanks for the encouragement - you may have pushed me into it.. Would probably be most inclined toward Promist 1/8 as it would be more or less invisible just a slight edge softener. I think SoftFx might be too much . In the Betacam days I used very light nets ubiquitously but in HD they were far more obvious.

I haven't used much filtration in a very long time but this might be the right time.
 
LennyLevy said:
I haven't used much filtration in a very long time but this might be the right time.
Click to expand...

Same here, but it's something I've lately been thinking about experimenting with again. Yeah, a lot of effects can be done in post now, but I'm skeptical they would look as good an old school glass filter. Let us know how it goes if you use some filtration.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Tiffen Soft/FX man, best filter ever made. Back in the dark ages of Betacam a secret 1/2 Soft/FX series 9 lived on my lens full-time and everybody wondered why my camera looked so nice compared to all the others. Great highlight flares and just the right amount of softening to take the "video" edge off.
Click to expand...

Filters are a forgotten art today. I always liked them too. Although these days Glimmerglass seems to be the go to softener and has basically replaced ProMist, Soft/FX etc. Have you tried it? I quite like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top