FS5: Sony releases Venice REC709 3D LUT

Just out of curiosity, I tested this out on a project I'm working on. The top screen grab is with the new Venice-like 3D LUT linked above by starcentral. The second pic is with Sony's LC709A LUT and the third pic is with one of the Bert LUTs, Arrilook Standard. LC709A and the new Venice-like LUT look similar to me, with LC709A leaning more towards magenta with some richer blues than the Venice-like LUT. The Bert LUT in comparison has shadows that are much more lifted.

Full disclosure, my FS7 footage here is adjusted with a S-Log3 to S-Log2 LUT that I created in LUTCalc. I usually put this LUT onto my FS7 footage before applying the color LUT on the adjustment layer. I do this for projects that I want a more contrasted look for, like this one here. So keep in mind that these shots were taken in camera at S-Log3 / S-Gamut3.Cine, adjusted on my timeline to S-Log2 and then the LUTs were applied to give the images above. Highlights were also adjusted slightly. No other corrections or adjustments have been made.

1 Venice LUT.jpg
2 LC709A.jpg
3 Bert LUT Standard.jpg
 
I also thought I would share this from another project (same client) that I shot a couple months back. This is a three camera shoot with a Sony FS7 (top left with both subjects), Sony A7RIII (top right), Sony A7SII (bottom left) and the bottom right is a crop of the FS7 top left shot. This is to show how well these three cameras play together. I shot S-Log3 / S-Gamut3.Cine on the FS7 and S-Log2 / S-Gamut3.Cine on the A7RIII and A7SII. The FS7 was converted in Premiere to S-Log2 by simply applying the S-Log3 to S-Log2 LUT I described in the post above that I created in LUTCalc. Bert LUT Arrilook Balanced was applied via an adjustment layer. I hardly had to change anything after that to have a fairly close match, and since I want to crank out these projects fast, being able to match all these cameras quickly is important to me. I love that. I'm assuming doing the same with the new Venice-like LUT will provide great results as well.

Dr.-Fisher-Edit-5.jpg
 
I like the skins but the client's on brand green is too yellowish with the Venice

NewVenice-200.jpg
 

Attachments

  • NewVenice-200 Kopie.jpg
    NewVenice-200 Kopie.jpg
    53.7 KB · Views: 0
So Sony is giving away a LUT to make their just released $70K top end camera look like their cheap $2K DSLRs? No real surprise there. Sony has always been a specialist in shooting themselves in the foot.

If you want the Arri look there is no cheap $2K way. You have to buy a high end camera. So the Arri look stays coveted and wanted. Because it's not in every single cheap YT video. Arri gets it. What is Sony thinking? I know this might be great for all the people who have the cheaper cameras. But as a business you have to ask, who at Sony is making those decisions? Having an A7 and FS5 with Venice colors will only cheapen the Venice look.

But then again when you remember this is the same company that cannibalized the F55 by offering 4K and HFR in the F5. Then cannibalized the F5 by offering a camera with a nearly identical image quality for a fraction of the price with the FS7. Then doing it again with the FS5. Not forgetting pissing all their clients who paid the big bucks for the F65 when they released the F55. Before that of course, abandoning everybody who paid even more for their F35 and leaving them out to dry. Without any updates and dropping all promised updates for it. Oh yes, let's not forget the F3 fiasco!

Oh Sony, you will never run with the big boys. You will never be taken seriously like Arri, Red and Panavision. The sad thing is it's becoming clear the reason is you are just not smart enough. Killing your official forums won't shut that up either. Just sad because the products are actually good.
 
Sttratos said:
If you want the Arri look there is no cheap $2K way. You have to buy a high end camera. So the Arri look stays coveted and wanted.

Oh Sony, you will never run with the big boys. You will never be taken seriously like Arri, Red and Panavision. The sad thing is it's becoming clear the reason is you are just not smart enough.
Click to expand...

I think the lut is for reproducing the Venice look but if they are targeting Arri they will fail because there is no lut that can transform into the low-rez non-Netflix approved look.
 
Sttratos said:
Stuff
Click to expand...

If sony line thier cameras up that is excellent.

The cheaper cameras with smaller DR will only have a subset of the lattitude of the 'fatter' cameras, they may also have more noise, less ability to discern subtle tones etc and probably lower resolutions and frame rates. not to mention crap ergos, weak build, no onboard backup whatever.

I think the broader question is why people feel the need to shoot on high end cameras today when in the main a cheap one will do the job.

I like to keep costs down so use my very adequate for most things fs7 - but there are situations that might require better res, higher frame rates or global shutter where I will push a client towards renting a different camera.

My local college rams instawitter with pics of its students wielding alexa minis - I get that is is a good camera but I hope that every time a student picks one up they have to justify why they did not spec a GH5 and went so foolishly over budget.
 
It would be interesting to see some better examples of this Venice LUT in action. I can't tell anything from these examples especially the green - I mean are we supposed to have the foggiest idea what that machine is supposed to look like? Even in the best of cameras getting a product's color right is very tough.
I'm a bit confused by all this press about the Venice's color and how its also in the FS5 Mark2. Is this just a LUT difference? Is it something you see when the camera is in a 709 color space or only in a Log space. Is this venice LUT something the Venice actually uses or is it meant to approximate how a Venice looks when its using a Sony 709A LUT?
So far underwhelmed.
 
Tom Roper said:
I think the lut is for reproducing the Venice look but if they are targeting Arri they will fail because there is no lut that can transform into the low-rez non-Netflix approved look.
Click to expand...

You know, if you had not taken it personally and replied from a clearly hurt ego, you would have gotten that I didn't say the lut was to imitate Arri. Sony already had a crack and failed to imitate the low-rez non-netflix approved look with their LC709A lut. I actually didn't bring the Arri look in the conversation at all. You did. I was speaking from a business perspective, for Sony. But since you clearly can't speak without your hurt ego, no point in giving you more time.

But I just need to point out that you are confused with the whole netflix approved thing. That is only valid for peasants such as you and I. If you are actually somebody you can still shoot with the best camera in the business. Like Scorsese who used the Alexa in his netflix movie. Besides bragging netflix approved as if netflix was some prestigious movie studio. It's TV no different than HBO. Bring me out of hibernation when a movie shot on the FS7, F5, F55 or even F65 has won an Oscar for cinematography by the way. For cinematography Oscars, normally the low-rez non-netflix approved look wins everything along with film.
 
morgan_moore said:
If sony line thier cameras up that is excellent.

The cheaper cameras with smaller DR will only have a subset of the lattitude of the 'fatter' cameras, they may also have more noise, less ability to discern subtle tones etc and probably lower resolutions and frame rates. not to mention crap ergos, weak build, no onboard backup whatever.

I think the broader question is why people feel the need to shoot on high end cameras today when in the main a cheap one will do the job.

I like to keep costs down so use my very adequate for most things fs7 - but there are situations that might require better res, higher frame rates or global shutter where I will push a client towards renting a different camera.

My local college rams instawitter with pics of its students wielding alexa minis - I get that is is a good camera but I hope that every time a student picks one up they have to justify why they did not spec a GH5 and went so foolishly over budget.
Click to expand...


OK. You try to make a fair point. But I'm thinking you missed my point. I obviously know the lut won't turn the cameras into a Venice. This is not the point.

I was speaking from a business perspective from Sony's POV. Or even from a company image POV actually. Of course for us peasants if they gave us 90% of the Venice in a $7k camera we would all love it. But you have to look at it from the high end market point of view. If Sony won't pay attention to that or don't have the smarts to play there, they might as well stop trying then.

It doesn't matter if you and I ask why people feel the need to shoot on high end cameras today when in the main a cheap one will do the job. This is just how it is. In the high end exclusivity for example goes a long way too. It's not only that of course. Image quality, usability, robustness etc is king. But if you think exclusivity and specially company image also don't play a role you are overlooking an important part of the business. How is it good for business if Sony openly tries to give the peasants the same look as their flagship camera? Can you imagine if Arri came out with a DSLR which had the Arri look for $2K? Can you imagine if Panavision would just sell all their old Genesis for the price the F35 is selling now? This is what I'm talking about. Business vision! Knowing the market you are trying to play in. It's clear Sony has no clue how to play in that sandbox. If Sony wants to play with the Harvard boys they have to ditch their community college mentality. Or just stop trying already and wasting their resources.

This is not a critique on the Venice. I think the image looks great and it's the best a Sony camera has looked since the F35. The camera seems like a winner. But you and I know this is not enough to get it accepted by the royalty of movie making. Cheapening the Venice out by associating it with their cheap cameras definitely doesn't help Sony's cachet. It doesn't help to fight the snobbery on sets towards Sony gear as compared to Arri, Panavision and Red. This was my point. But it seems Sony owners are just hurt because they own a Sony and think I'm just attacking their cameras. Try to look at it past your own personal interests. It's a dumb move by Sony.

By the way I was not aware that it was ok and within the rules to modify people' quote with words that weren't included in what they said. Some forum softwares will not even allow that.
 
Sttratos said:
It doesn't matter if you and I ask why people feel the need to shoot on high end cameras today when in the main a cheap one will do the job. This is just how it is. In the high end exclusivity for example goes a long way too. It's not only that of course. Image quality, usability, robustness etc is king. But if you think exclusivity and specially company image also don't play a role you are overlooking an important part of the business. How is it good for business if Sony openly tries to give the peasants the same look as their flagship camera? Can you imagine if Arri came out with a DSLR which had the Arri look for $2K? Can you imagine if Panavision would just sell all their old Genesis for the price the F35 is selling now? This is what I'm talking about. Business vision! Knowing the market you are trying to play in. It's clear Sony has no clue how to play in that sandbox. If Sony wants to play with the Harvard boys they have to ditch their community college mentality. Or just stop trying already and wasting their resources.
Click to expand...

Interesting thoughts. I dont disagree entirely. I started my career in stills though so have seen the arc of nikon closely and possibly a democratisation of stills tech. Simply no-one cares what you shoot on nowadays I dont think ? - a bargain CaNikon 5d for example looks great. Kit is over for 'cache' but there for spec. The top end cameras (1dx, 5d) are chosen and used purely for thier 'horse power' of high frame rates, instant back up, robust build, better AF, brighter VF. I dont shoot stills with a top end nikon, I dont need to, but if I did football (HFR) every week like my chums I would do.
 
JRJphoto said:
What Morgan said. All of that.
Click to expand...

Almost but not quite because it misses the relevance of time. The point about "the broader question is why people feel the need to shoot on high end cameras today when in the main a cheap one will do the job," doesn't recognize that those cheaper cameras today didn't exist when we paid for the expensive ones yesterday. Is that a reason to stop using them? It might be a reason to stop buying them. That opinion has been expressed before. And it may not be a question of "or" but of "and." I'm not going to stop using my F55 simply because I added cheaper GH5 and GH5s. But had those cameras been available, or the FS7/EVA1, probably like many others I would not have invested so heavily into 4k at that stage and the F55 ecosystem of PL cinema glass either. And if I just went by the specs, the GH5(s) technically can cover most of the same bases, like 400 Mbps all-I internal log recording as one example, maybe ahead on a few others. I'd have thought I could get the same picture. But I can't. It's good, but it's not as pretty. The GH5s low light is better than F55 by some amount, the DR is pretty good as well, the skin tones look nice out of the box, but something in the color and rest of the F55 picture is definitely better. If I had to put my finger on one thing, it's a fuller, deeper color array. Specs have a hard time describing that. You could say something like, both record into BT.2020 but that doesn't tell you if both are like 16 oz mugs of beer but one is full and the other contains only 12 oz. Without F55 I would have missed out on 4k then, and I'd be missing the intangibles now, that while hard to describe add beauty and value. And it's more relevant now than I ever imagined because we're into the era of making movies in HDR and WCG.
 
morgan_moore said:
Interesting thoughts. I dont disagree entirely. I started my career in stills though so have seen the arc of nikon closely and possibly a democratisation of stills tech. Simply no-one cares what you shoot on nowadays I dont think ? - a bargain CaNikon 5d for example looks great. Kit is over for 'cache' but there for spec. The top end cameras (1dx, 5d) are chosen and used purely for thier 'horse power' of high frame rates, instant back up, robust build, better AF, brighter VF. I dont shoot stills with a top end nikon, I dont need to, but if I did football (HFR) every week like my chums I would do.
Click to expand...

I also don't shoot stills. But I have heard there was a time, way before my time, where if you didn't use a Nikon you were not a pro. Then Canon took over and I heard from a stills photographer that these days you need a Canon to be taken seriously. Unless of course in medium format land. But then maybe this has also been a while and today it doesn't matter the brand anymore.

But Hollywood is its own animal and I doubt it will follow that. At least any soon.
 
Sttratos said:
I also don't shoot stills. But I have heard there was a time, way before my time, where if you didn't use a Nikon you were not a pro. Then Canon took over and I heard from a stills photographer that these days you need a Canon to be taken seriously. Unless of course in medium format land. But then maybe this has also been a while and today it doesn't matter the brand anymore.

But Hollywood is its own animal and I doubt it will follow that. At least any soon.
Click to expand...


Before and during WW2 it was Leica, Leica, Leica, a few Zeiss Contax and 4x5 Speed Graphic.
Maybe throw in the Rolleiflex 6x6 for good measure.

Just after WW2 is was Leica and Rollei.

Nikon shows up during the Korean War and it becomes Leica and Nikon.

Leica drops the ball during the Vietnam era by not making a good SLR.
The Nikon F-series dominates everything for a very long time.
Hasselblad dominates fashion and advertising.

Canon gets in the game during the 70's/80's and slowly builds a following. Canon sees the potential of the microprocessor and makes a big push for automating many features.

By the 90's and 2000's Nikon and Canon are neck to neck.

Nikon drops the ball around the time of the 5D by not taking video serious. They still don't.
Most news shooters go Canon because they need to shoot both stills and video.
Anyone who ever wanted to shoot a movie buys a 5D mk2 and later on a Canon EOS movie camera, lenses etc
Canon sells more cameras than Nikon. Nikon has the better sensors and still doesn't take video serious.
Leica pulls back from the brink and reinvents itself as a luxury brand. Sales of Tri-X stabilize.

Nowadays no one cares what you shoot.
 
LennyLevy said:
It would be interesting to see some better examples of this Venice LUT in action. I can't tell anything from these examples especially the green - I mean are we supposed to have the foggiest idea what that machine is supposed to look like? Even in the best of cameras getting a product's color right is very tough. .
Click to expand...

I can tell you that the Bert's LUT reproduces the green way more accurate. I am earning a big part of my living with working for this client. I am curious per se in general. I always try to improve my work within the limits of the budget. I was surprised when I tried the Venice LUT about the difference in green. It's just an observation and I was surprised about the hype for this LUT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top