F3: Sony F3 Resurrection - The New Chapter

yoclay said:
In any case, statement like the one I responded to that are pure FUD.

log images are NOT to be used without a lut applied
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I do agree that log images do not necessarily need any LUTs applied, and a pro colorist can and would work without them. It's just that in many ways this thread is geared to people looking for using LUTs because they are not colorists. Hopefully its helped someone out there.

Sam those images are pretty good, and I'm sure it's taken you a lot of trial and error to get there. I'm also sure if there was an easier way you would take it.
 
Last edited:
"easier way"

Kind of or not. My big journey is moving from photoshop (since 98) and stills to Resolve and motion.

The Lutted image still has lack of red in the highs lows once I took some red out of my face - so I still have to correct it.. and used the method in '26

So I think there is a valuable journey, and once you have gone on that journey (and stored a few looks) you end up being in the same place - able to get an image in the ballpark with a few clicks, either using a Lut or a look you have built and stored.

For a technical grade (read not fiction but maybe a product) I feel that resolve 11 with 'click to colour card' will be the thing.

To some extent shooting a non nailed codec has really opened a few doors, we are given creativity, but must learn to use it or get in bed with a colourist who can.

Non nailed is what Ive wanted as Im so used to raw stills.

S
 
Dennis do you also have a stand alone LUT for Cineon footage to convert it with Alexa Log C to REC709 (the second part of your formula)? I know it can be done within Resolve, but I wanted to try it in MBL where you can add LUTs. Thanks!
 
Thanks for still posting useful information about the F3,

I recently upgraded to a used F3 from my HMC151, into the realm of S35mm sensor for video work.
It was difficult at the start picking between FS100/700/F3 and I spent a lot of time reading ALL the posts in the F3 forum and DVinfo and finally settled on F3, it is truly one of the most versatile and underrated 2K camera in the market and can be had for a very low price. Everyone's post had been very very helpful to let me understand all the pros and cons of the camera before handling one. Please keep it going!
 
All I can suggest people do is really practice your curves adjustments - good curves and ramped up saturation will 'normalise' an F3 SLOG image really quickly and easily. It certainly took me some practice to understand how lifting and lowering certain sections of a curve would affect the highlight, midtones and shadows of an SLOG image - but once I got the hang of it, the rest became pretty simple really.

If you're looking for a more 'filmic' look, then start with a film-emulation LUT and fine tune the curves and colours via your lift/gamma/gain sliders in Resolve. Windows/mattes/masks/selective noise reduction are all higher-end adjustments and take more time to get the hang of. But the curves and colour adjustments are pretty straightforward once you're used to them.

After getting the hang of them, I basically never had to put up with a graded SLOG image that I was unsatisfied with.
 
Grug said:
All I can suggest people do is really practice your curves adjustments - good curves and ramped up saturation will 'normalise' an F3 SLOG image really quickly and easily. It certainly took me some practice to understand how lifting and lowering certain sections of a curve would affect the highlight, midtones and shadows of an SLOG image - but once I got the hang of it, the rest became pretty simple really.

If you're looking for a more 'filmic' look, then start with a film-emulation LUT and fine tune the curves and colours via your lift/gamma/gain sliders in Resolve. Windows/mattes/masks/selective noise reduction are all higher-end adjustments and take more time to get the hang of. But the curves and colour adjustments are pretty straightforward once you're used to them.

After getting the hang of them, I basically never had to put up with a graded SLOG image that I was unsatisfied with.
Click to expand...

+1
 
Indeed, 10bit HyperdeckShuttle.

going back to the exposure, id say it was a little under - but I did hold the highs, so ideally there would have been a bit more fill in the room..

S
 
in Davinci what value did you have on the scopes in Resolve? I think middle grey is around 384 to 394 for original slog.
 
I wouldn't say its underexposed then, typically people get good results exposing skin tones at middle grey or one stop under.

What really great is you got your *.cin image to that point without any use of cheating LUTs., way to go. :)
 
Grug said:
If you're looking for a more 'filmic' look, then start with a film-emulation LUT and fine tune the curves and colours via your lift/gamma/gain sliders in Resolve.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY.

LUTs are NOT shortcuts. I was saying to Sam that log images are not to be used without a curve (LUT) applied.

They are an ESSENTIAL part of a REAL colorist toolkit.

You start with a CINEON log image, like the ALEXA files which are CINEON, the new REDCOLOR4/REDLOGFILM R3Ds which are much comparable to CINEON, or...well an slog (F3/F35) image with the SLOG TO CINEON LUT by macgregor applied as an INPUT LUT!

Then you set an output LUT like REC709 or a Print Emulation LUT if you are going to print it OR you want to achieve a specific look.

And finally you start the color correction, and after that the grading (aka look).

As said by Dennis, you work in the middle.

This is done because the LUT permits all your controls to behave like working on a linear image.

This is what this thread is about. LUTs. Specifically the use of the macgregor LUT as input LUT to convert slog files to cineon.

Clayton, apart from being quite presumptuous in your tone and derailing the main topic of the thread, you completely disrespect the standard procedure which professional colorist use the most!

It's like you have LUTfobia!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top