F55: Split Screen comparison of Venice-like LUT vs. LC709TypeA LUT

Cary, thanks for the detailed explanation. I'm going to try re-grading all the clips using the steps you have suggested.
 
There's more than one way to do this, but since your objective is to maintain the largest working space it's easiest to start with this (in order):


Project Settings:

1.) Choose Resolve YRGB Color Managed space
2.) Set the Input Color Space to Bypass
3.) Set the Timeline Color Space to S-Gamut3.Cine/S-Log3
4.) Set the Output Color Space to S-Gamut3.Cine/S-Log3

Lookup Tables:

1.) Set 3D Output Lookup Table to the Venice lut; Slog3-S-Gamut3.Cine_To_s709_V200

Media Page:

1.) Set the Clip Attributes Data Levels to Full
2.) Set the Clip Input Color Space to Bypass or S-Gamut3.Cine/S-Log3

Nodes:

1.) In Node 1 make your exposure adjustment as before.
2.) Don't use Node 2 for the Venice lut.

Comments:

1.) Any lut you put in a node grading space becomes an input lut and confines the grading space for that clip to the 709 boundaries of the lut. You can use a different lut for each clip if you want.
2.) If the lut is selected from the 3D Output Lookup Table it is applied globally to all the clips. The grading space is not confined to the 709 boundaries of the lut until you render.
3.) The girl on the right side is the Venice lut.
 
Cary, thanks for the suggestions but your method does not work me unless the footage is pretty much perfectly exposed at Sony's 60 IRE recommendation, which I already said that I do not follow. If the exposure is a stop or two higher than that, as mine almost always is, then it is virtually impossible to bring the levels down following your workflow and still have the look clip good. Highlights are almost impossbible to recover without blacks going blocky and crushed. I've tried many variations on several clips and I have given up on this workflow. Maybe there are some benefits to doing in/out transforms if you work with a lot of different cameras, but I don't. All my LOG/RAW footage is FS7 or F55 and I have no need to mix with Arri, Red, or whatever. Thanks, but this workflow is not for me.

On the other hand, Tom's recommendations are looking very good. In fact, I barely have any over-exposure problems that need to be brought down. The levels are usually pretty good without doing any primary grading at all. However, I still have to do some more comparisons to see if the this method is any better than the workflow I already use.
 
Thanks for the comparison Doug. My pick is comfortably 'B'. It's much more pleasing on skintones out of the box, and I also prefer the tones of greens and yellows from it too.
 
Tom Roper said:
Why not?
Click to expand...
You are not using color managed mode at all, change the timeline and output to anything you like, as long as they are the same you will notice it will not make any difference.
Also for an effective color managed mode this setup will not make sense either since the output LUT is evaluated before the output color space in Resolve.
 
Doug, very interesting footage. Thanks for doing this.

The FS7 footage B side shows less magenta and a lovely more natural look with a bit more yellow for skin tones. I assumed that the B side was the Venice look. I found myself disliking the A side after a while. I guess because I am so used to it. The wildlife footage didn't have that same feel at all. I liked them both and I had a hard time seeing any differences. As for the F55 footage, I liked them both and didn't feel that the differences were great....very subtle. There appeared to be a difference in the mid tone gammas, but that was it.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Cary, thanks for the suggestions but your method does not work me unless the footage is pretty much perfectly exposed at Sony's 60 IRE recommendation, which I already said that I do not follow. If the exposure is a stop or two higher than that, as mine almost always is, then it is virtually impossible to bring the levels down following your workflow and still have the look clip good. Highlights are almost impossbible to recover without blacks going blocky and crushed. I've tried many variations on several clips and I have given up on this workflow. Maybe there are some benefits to doing in/out transforms if you work with a lot of different cameras, but I don't. All my LOG/RAW footage is FS7 or F55 and I have no need to mix with Arri, Red, or whatever. Thanks, but this workflow is not for me.
Click to expand...
It you are interested and can dropbox an original out of camera clip (for instance one on the water and/or a facial shot) I can walk you through it step by step.
But if you want to hang on to using LUTs then it probably will do not much good.
 
Last edited:
It couldn't be any less obvious with the magenta cast that LUTA is LC709A. But a small tweak to LC709/LC709A by bumping up the green mid-tones will remove the magenta, and a slighter bump to red midtones will warm it up a bit.

Doug for color space transform learnings, check out Juan Malera's video. He does some Sony examples in the 2nd half. I have moved over to this, ACES requires too much processing and in my opinion doesn't provide anything significant that makes it worth using. Again just my opinion.

CST (custom space transform) in DaVinci Resolve, the only way I color now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qJ7i9b28Lo
 
starcentral said:
ACES requires too much processing and in my opinion doesn't provide anything significant that makes it worth using. Again just my opinion.
Click to expand...
I like ACES in that it gets things right from the start and requires only minimum adjustments, personally I do not notice much processing overhead.
However if you have ill exposed footage or footage with color temperature problems it is much harder to adjust under ACES.
 
Hi Dennis, thanks for the suggestion. So I watched Juan's video and then followed his steps precisely on several of my clips. Then I compared those results to the results I got grading my normal method (the one that Cary says is all wrong) and the results were surprisingly similar, but in every case I liked mine better. His method really created some ugly banding in some shots, particularly the lit match on the black background. The flame was a mess. But even if, for the sake of argument, I say it was a tie between the two methods and they both looked equally good, my method still wins because it so so much simpler. 1/10 as many steps as he shows, plus he never even actually does any grading in his video. It takes him dozens of steps just to get to the point where he's ready to use the wheels for grading. Juan seems hell bent on getting S-LOG converted to LogC so he can deal with it on familiar terms. But I don't come to the table with his bias towards S-LOG and I don't have any need to mix S-LOG into an Arri workflow, so all this floundering about to get the footage transformed is a complete waste of time for me. I don't mean any disrespect to Juan because I'm sure he's 10x the colorist I'll ever be, but I wonder what would happen if he really spent some time learning how to grade S-LOG as S-LOG rather than immediately bailing out and converting it to something else?

The bottom line is that I'll stay with the methods I've been using for the last four years -- with one exception -- I do do like the look of starting with the new Slog3-S-Gamut3.Cine_To_s709_V200 LUT as my base rather than the old Slog3SGamut3.CineToLC-709TypeA LUT or the Arri Alexa LogC to Rec709 LUT.

Out of Juan's workflow, Cary's worklflow, and Tom's workflow, the only one that even came close to being good enough is Tom's. I could use his method and be happy, but ultimately I still prefer my own.

BTW, everyone is correct.
Side A is Slog3SGamut3.CineToLC-709TypeA
Side B is Slog3-S-Gamut3.Cine_To_s709_V200
 
Last edited:
Cary Knoop said:
However if you have ill exposed footage or footage with color temperature problems it is much harder to adjust under ACES.
Click to expand...

My footage is not ill exposed. I purposely shoot with the camera rated 2 stops lower than the manufacturer recommends. My exposures are precise, deliberate, and consistent from shot to shot. If ACES doesn't work for footage where the exposure is not within that range, it is a failure of ACES, not mine.
 
It's not my fault if the manufacturer overstates the sensitivity of their cameras. I need to deal with theses cameras in the real world and I know what looks best for my cameras because I've done the testing and I have five years of real-world experience with them. Even Alister Chapman and I agree on the best exposure levels, and we rarely agree on anything. And we are not outliers. Out of curiosity, which of the S-LOG capable cameras do you own and how do you expose for LOG or RAW?
 
I guess we have to agree to disagree on preferring color space tranforms over LUTs and on exposing right instead of being two stops off. :)
 
Cary Knoop said:
In my opinion exposing two stops off is really bad exposure whether it is intentional or not does not make it any better.
Click to expand...

There is no 'off'. There is no 'bad'.

There is only collecting 0s and 1s (some of which may be false data - noise) .. its digital

Expsosure is a choice in digital aquisition. One needs to ETTR or not to make the best use of the DR of the camera and your interpretation of the scene, the scene DR and which bits of the scene are 'artistically important'

If one does not understand/do this one will not get the best SN ratio in ones footage.

(AKA typically expose a bit ettr unless there are important highlights to hold - but not too ettr as sony compresses the highlights)
 
Last edited:
My take on the LUTs.. neither are getting the footage to a place where one would not grade further. On that basis they are both equally good/bad - I dont see any magic.
 
In Resolve 12 and 14, I always used RCM to transform from S-Log3/S-Gamut3.Cine to Rec.2020/St.2084 when grading for HDR10. But since I do agree with both Doug and Alister about the advantages of 1-2 stops over-exposing, it always bit me that the conversion takes place before I reduce the exposure to the proper levels. Introduction of OFX gamma/color space transform in Resolve 15 has totally solved this problem for me, as - using the basic DaVinci YRGB workflow - I can now bring the levels down to the right ballpark in the first node, and apply the Color Space Transform OFX in the second node to arrive in my 2020/2084. Granted, I'm just an amateur in all this but my (overexposed in-camera) highlights look much better now - and that's what I was always dissatisfied with using RCM. So I'm a happy camper :)

Piotr

PS. Worth to mention that I'm only overexposing my S-log footage with certain types of scenery, where I anticipate noise in the shadows - otherwise, I go by the Sony book as to rating my camera ISO. Of course, consistency in doing this is a must!
 
Doug Jensen said:
Uh, it's double-blind for YOU.
Click to expand...

Not to be too much of a pedant but this isn't what double-blind means. Double-blind = both tester and subject are in the dark. If you knew what the LUTs were going in, it's just blind.

My actions have not affected the outcome.
Click to expand...

If you knew what they were going in, then even picking one LUT to be "A" and the other to be "B" is a biased decision. That's the rationale behind a true double blind test. To stop even minor subconscious biases from occurring.

Pedant hat off, I prefer "B" as it looks closer to "real" color to me, but still looks a little washed out which reminds me of the FS5MkII trailer I saw so I'd guess that's the Venice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top