Which is Better: S-LOG w/o Ex Recorder or Ex Recorder w/o S-LOG?

The issue isn't whether or not you can improve a baked-in LUT in post with some color grading, the question is, why wouldn't you just record the S-LOG signal itself? Why have S-LOG and then NOT record it? You can't generate a LUT without the ability to have S-LOG too, so the camera must have S-LOG on it, right? And if you say, well, I don't want to deal with S-LOG, then why not just create a custom Picture Profile and forget about the LUT and S-LOG entirely? You have a hundreds of times more control (not an exaggeration) over a custom PP than you can with a baked-in LUT. A LUT doesn't even allow you to use a Cine Gamma which is one of the most powerful features of the camera.

So whether a LUT can be improved or not doesn't matter. Why bother at all when there are two superior choices right in front of your face: Choose S-LOG or choose a custom PP . Or a third option, still better than a LUT, would be just to shoot with the camera's default settings.


So, I'll repeat my question to Sparky874, where is the S-LOG being recorded if the Samurai is being used for the LUT? What is your workflow here?
 
Doug Jensen said:
all of the built-in monitor LUTS look terrible to compared using a nice Picture Profile. Even the camera's standard PP OFF look is better than a LUT. The LUTS are so bad, that I will not even allow a client to look at LUT when I am shooting S-LOG. I'd rather they look at the raw S-LOG output than see a half-assed LUT. No one in their right mind would record a LUT and then use that for their final edit.
Click to expand...

Now somewhere on this thread or another one it was recommended by (I think Mitch Gross at Abel Cine if I have the name and the company right??) that recording the 800% LUT directly to the SXS card gave better results than any of the PP's and while it had less latitude than full sLog it was till better than the cinegamma's. He saw it as a good choice for clients who don't want to do extensive grading. Also a way to get decent quality with sLog directly to SxS.
 
It is my feeling that the LUT should only be used for viewing. And I completely agree with Doug that output from, for example, the Abel picture profiles looks a lot better than any of the LUTs. While not trying to put too many words into the OP's mouth, I think he wanted to record a LUT output to have a basis of where to start grading. My feeling is I would rather start grading with the clean S-Log output. And yes, it all began when Mitch posted about recording LUT to SxS cards.

Ned
 
Lenilenapi said:
Now somewhere on this thread or another one it was recommended by (I think Mitch Gross at Abel Cine if I have the name and the company right??) that recording the 800% LUT directly to the SXS card gave better results than any of the PP's and while it had less latitude than full sLog it was till better than the cinegamma's. He saw it as a good choice for clients who don't want to do extensive grading. Also a way to get decent quality with sLog directly to SxS.
Click to expand...

..and to add to that, the conversation in that thread was, would the amount of grading needed to bring a slog image up to a final version be to much for the native codec if one were using slog with out a external recorder. Mitch's suggestion was meant I believe to get you closer in the ballpark of a final image while still reaping most of the benefits of s-log. Yes, he was suggesting the 800% Hypergamma LUT's not the Rec709 one.
 
Lenilenapi said:
Now somewhere on this thread or another one it was recommended by (I think Mitch Gross at Abel Cine if I have the name and the company right??) that recording the 800% LUT directly to the SXS card gave better results than any of the PP's and while it had less latitude than full sLog it was till better than the cinegamma's. He saw it as a good choice for clients who don't want to do extensive grading. Also a way to get decent quality with sLog directly to SxS.
Click to expand...

I found the quote from Mitch. It is post #30 on this thread.

Normally I have a lot of respect for Mitch but I would strongly disagree with him on this point and would gladly do a shoot out anytime he wants. His LUT against a custom PP. You want to grade in post? I have a PP for that. You want to grade in-camera? I have a PP for that too. Either, I will beat the LUT. I've seen the LUTs and they are awful.

I have no doubt which setting would win. Anything you can do with the LUT, you can do better -- plus manipulate so many other things at the same time with a proper PP.
This thread is ridiculous. I can't beleive anyone in their right mind would choose one of the monitor LUTs over a Picture Profile. That is just crazy. Besides that, if you like the look of the LUT, just create the same thing with a really bad PP and then you don't even need S-LOG at all. There you just saved $3500!
 
Last edited:
Doug - I started with your series on the F3 and it was very helpful. I now use PP 3 (range) from Abel Cine and it seems to work well in most situations. I know that there is variable lighting, etc. but do you have PP that you believe are better overall than this? When recorded to a Samurai and graded in FCP X I find it works quite nicely and wonder what would really be gained by S-LOG except for special low light/high contrast situations?
 
The idea of showing one's clients log though instead of a lut is contrary to all of the professional work flows that exist. I have worked with the F35, Alexa, Red One, Epic, and Slog enabled F3s and Spigotting out Rec 709 to clients is the standard. Most people who don't know flip when they see log and ask questions. These lust help their imaginations bridge the gap.
 
I think Mitch intended his comment for those people who are new to Log and have traditionally shot with a burned in look and not been accustomed to heavy grading for their projects.
 
Sorry to catch up on this thread a little late -- so nice to be talked about! ;-)

Doug, I respectfully disagree. The Picture Profiles are setting based on the REC709 matrix which cannot be removed. Because of that, you will still be stuck with the "Sony style" color mapping which overly saturates highlights, sometimes leading to artifacts like color shifts in highlights like yellow whites.

If you want the most control of your image, shoot S-LOG. If you don't want to go through a lot of post correction but still want to increase your dynamic range and control saturation color shifts, shoot in S-LOG but capture the Hyper Gamma 800% LUT. The 33% LUT is best for low light and the 40% for high light day exteriors. You may want to increase the saturation a touch in post, but I personally like where the saturation lands as is for most work. You will gain several stops of dynamic range shooting this way over any possible Picture Profile lain over REC709. REC709 can only hold about 8 stops. S-Log is extracting from almost 12.
 
Hello all. Sorry for late reponse, been away on a shoot all week. Doug, I was just trying to try out Mitch's work to see how it performed.
 
Mitch, thanks for clarifying your approach so we don't have to wonder if we just didn't understand it. I guess we'll be have to agree to disagree on this one because I have done my own testing under controlled circumstances and I am certain that my method provides better results for me. Other people may have different workflows and expectations of what they want their footage to look like. I am less concerned about a losing little extra dynamic range with a PP (if that is even true ) than I am about giving up all the other control I have with a PP vs. a LUT. Those LUTS are just plain ugly and will probably require as much effort to grade as S-LOG. So, even if the workflow is to grade in post, I'll still take a PP over a LUT any day. And if I'm going to grade anyway, and if I can turn a LUT on, then I must have S-lOG on the camera, so I would just use S-LOG anyway. A LUT is the worst of both worlds. Someday when I'm in NYC, let's get together and do a shoot out! I look forward to it.
 
Certainly, it's just a suggestion. You do what works best for you. Me, I hate when the highlights have color shift.

When you come to town you could check out our ProVFM viewfinder mount for the F3 as well. I understand you're a big fan. ;-D
 
I hate color shifts in the hightlights too, but it sounds like you are saying the only way to prevent that is by recording a LUT or S-LOG. That has not been my experience. I have my Picture Profiles programmed to prevent color shifts in highlights from happening. Even when overexposed whites are still white. Are you seeing something different?

I'd love to see the viewfinder mount. I'd also love to buy one if there was a solution to feed a color signal into it with zebras & other camera data, but not have to have a lot of other peripherals that have to be mounted and powered as well. I'm sure for the right rig, it is a an ideal solution.
 
Last edited:
Interesting debate for which I'd love to see comparison shots.
Not having SLog I haven't compared that to LUT's or PP's but wasn't one of the major advantages of cinegammas over Rec709 exactly that they get rid of the oversaturated highlights? Is that not so Mitch?

BTW the way have any of you guys tried out Alister Chapman's "s-log light" PP setting for the F3 using a heavily altered cinegamma?
 
S-Log & Color

S-Log & Color

Fact: Unless you prefer the wedding video look of the 80's, S-Log simply renders color in a much more organic way than you will ever get out of the camera without it. I feel like this is possibly the biggest asset with S-Log even if you are recording with a LUT straight to SxS. Of course some people prefer bud light over heineken...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top