F3: To slog or not slog, that tis the question

To slog or not slog, that tis the question

  • It's slog or nothing

    Votes: 7 36.8%

  • I prefer cine gammas

    Votes: 2 10.5%

  • I shoot REC709

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • It depends on the project

    Votes: 10 52.6%
  • Total voters
    19
starcentral

starcentral

Veteran
Ok so who's shooting slog over cine gammas or custom picture profiles? (F3, F5 or F55)

Reasons? Observations? Conclusions?
 
Last edited:
Unless the client ask for S-Log they get cine gamma 1 or 4 some get Rec 709, if the project is being edited by me like the corporate I shot today then it is shot in S-Log to the Ki Pro Mini in ProResHQ, unless it is a green screen shoot. BTW I transcode the ProRes in Avid to DNxHD 175x or 220x depending, I've lost some files on the Ki Pro Mini while shooting DNxHD and since then have never trusted it to the Avid codec.

I'm not sure why you want reasons, observations or conclusions, technically they have been discussed in great detail on various forums around the net, cine gamma is good, s-log is about a stop or so better (DR). Using DaVinchi Resolve with 10bit color files; I have so much control over the scene, and that is just with 10bit 4:2:2. Contrast, color, gamma you can push everything way past what you may think you can, along with DaVinchi power mask and tracking I would not want to go back to Rec 709.
 
The budget for post is as important as the budget for production. It seems that the editor willing to do color at the same time is rare. For my own projects I do both. For others if they can't afford a colorist to get the levels right then no s-log. If they want little to no color editing then rec709.
 
Id rather shoot S-log but the vast majority of my clients don't want to bother with the color correction. Disappointing to me .
 
I mostly do TV commercials and movies from directing to post so S-Log is the standard setting. Even for chroma key.
Even before S-Log I had to color grade all my work, so why not get the advantage of the max the camera can give (F3). The old computer saying "Garbage in garbage out" is still true.
I would only deliver straight from camera if it was news footage.

This is a chroma key for an web promo. I did 5 nodes in DaVinci Resonve. Keyed with Motion and sound with Sound Track Pro. I did this for my wife's business so payment was 0¢ ;-)

http://youtu.be/h2ILMaDMUpE
 
Yes I'm sure the topic has been discussed at great lengths here, and in other forums, but as always now that something has had even more maturity I'm curious to know who's using it and some of their reasons and if they have swayed one way or another.

For me I prefer slog over any other gamma curves but like many it depends on the project and the first question is who will be doing the post work.

I also know there are some folks who insist that slog is not the holy grail and that the same image, or even better can be done in-camera using cine gammas and/or customized picture profiles.
 
I shoot exclusively in SLOG. Perhaps it's because I came to shooting video from film photography, but I've always thought in terms of shooting the fattest negative possible with the expectation of processing the negative afterwards.
 
Grug said:
I shoot exclusively in SLOG. Perhaps it's because I came to shooting video from film photography, but I've always thought in terms of shooting the fattest negative possible with the expectation of processing the negative afterwards.
Click to expand...
+1
 
Grug said:
I shoot exclusively in SLOG. Perhaps it's because I came to shooting video from film photography, but I've always thought in terms of shooting the fattest negative possible with the expectation of processing the negative afterwards.
Click to expand...

I completely agree as well.. and in some cases for some projects even offered to grade the footage FREE afterwards, knowing the results are better and give you more flexibility in post.

...yet there are some folks who have been pretty insistent that a good picture profile is all you need.

I guess one of the points of my poll/post was to drive that discussion, and see what the general consensus was on slog vs non-slog and some of the reasons behind them. Obviously the benefit of not shooting slog is not having to deal with it later in post. How much better or worse is the resulting image? If better/worse at all?
 
I prefer shooting in S-Log 99% times, it manages highligths xtremely well, and the camera seems not a sony.
BUT, sometimes I saw a bit noisy files i n ProRes HQ, 10bits in shadows, on the contrary, in camera 8bit xdcam files appears slight better.
 
starcentral said:
I completely agree as well.. and in some cases for some projects even offered to grade the footage FREE afterwards, knowing the results are better and give you more flexibility in post.

...yet there are some folks who have been pretty insistent that a good picture profile is all you need.

I guess one of the points of my poll/post was to drive that discussion, and see what the general consensus was on slog vs non-slog and some of the reasons behind them. Obviously the benefit of not shooting slog is not having to deal with it later in post. How much better or worse is the resulting image? If better/worse at all?
Click to expand...

I believe that control is the game we play in this business. When we shot negative the DP sat in on the grading, the DP had ultimate control over the look of the image. S-Log gives you that same control in post, sure you can set up a look and bring that look with you into grading but with S-Log you can still refine the image you are not locked into something that has been burned in like a picture profile.

But like the folks have said above not everyone can afford a color grading session so they request Rec 709 or you sell the client on a picture profile look. I have clients that just want to bring the image into the timeline and cut with very little color grading taking place and for them may I suggest a Flanders color monitor, WYSIWYG.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top