Kind of a hangup of mine, throwing shade on anything NOT shot in LOG formats - after all, the entire history of "color timers" working on celluloid dealt with really flat LOG-like developed film - but I must admit that the PP OFF samples looked better than expected. Probably a big part of that is your controlled studio conditions, whereas less predictable field conditions benefit significantly from the latitude provisioned by LOG for dynamic (and tedious) post-tweaking. It bothers me when labor-union-esque video boutique jocks complain about how dropping a LUT onto LOG footage is an extra, expensive, billable step - good riddance! - and that LOG requires lots of extra work. That's nonsense as you note, and the benefits far outweigh, including opening up the possibilities of using film emulation designed for mathematically precise/stable picture profiles. My favorite thing about LOG is that I shoot with multiple camera brands like most people, suited to particular purposes and camera angles: so the flattest I can get these images, the better I can match different cameras (especially using tools like Cinematch). I'm a big fan of S-Log3 but to be honest I've always defaulted to the subvariant of S-Gamut.Cine without really appreciating its added value (it has the suffix "cine" so I gullibly adopt it). Would have been interesting to see how that affects S-Log (probably imperceptibly?). I share your "meh" reaction to Sony's much ballyhooed S-Cinetone. Word to the wise: avoid engaging with its official grumpy evangelist Alister Chapman...
I think S-Cinetone can look nice in naturally lit scenarios, but I don't know why you'd opt for it over S-Log. Thanks for your insights, that's interesting how LOG is viewed in sort of legacy, professional settings. I was surprised by PP-OFF, but I suspect I would see a noticeable difference in dynamic range in situations without controlled lighting. I might take your suggestion and check out the differences b/n S-Gamut and 3.Cine
@@PhillipRPeck Another thing I neglected to mention is skin tones; interesting how your scopes revealed pure accuracy as to the skin tone line, but one of the reasons S-Cinetone got attention at launch because it seemed to cure the pervasive handicap of Sony color: bad skin chroma. A/B tests are actually tricky because in your examples here, S-Log3 ends up making your face look a bit (pardon the observation) ready to hurl (or a few hours into the morgue), but only after flipping from the other profiles immediately. Still, skin tones remain the one delicate spot for me when it comes to Sony color. Curation of LUTs with care depending on surrounding lighting has been my only somewhat random, case-by-case strategy.
If I use LUTs, I typically ride with the Phantom LUTs. They skew a bit warmer/redder in the skin tones. But a LUT or CST is never the end of it for me so I don't stress too much about the initial conversion. But I guess it's all down to personal taste anyway because I don't mind the rendering of the base Sony LUT or the straight CST in Resolve.
You can indeed change parameters for PP Off under Creative Look such as Standard (ST.) Contrast, Highlights, Shadows, Fade, Saturation, Sharpness, and Clarity are all adjustable.
That is true. I guess what I meant is that you don't have the adjustments in the picture profile settings like you do for all the other picture profiles like: black level, gamma, knee, color mode, color depth, etc.
Fun comparison! I use S-Cinetone in my home office because I record everything into my ATEM Mini ISO and that only records 8-bit. For everything else, it’s SLOG3. The biggest difference between the two is the amount of dynamic range captured - I thing log is at least 2 stops more than any picture profile which in the real world is noticeable. I’ve found the biggest impact on the footage is the lens I use. I much prefer the contrasty look and warmer colors of Sigma lenses. I’m planning to do a video soon about the difference between the two.
I didn't really consider the case for 8-bit, just assuming everyone would shoot 10-bit 422, but that would definitely be a case where you'd want to avoid S-Log 3. I think I might do an outdoor or natural light comparison so that I can see the differences in dynamic range. Interesting point about the Sigma lenses. They definitely have a warm cast to them
Good point about livestreaming; that's when I've used S-Cinetone too, which is a bit more foolproof than baking the conversion LUT into an S-Log3 stream (and it's easier to match with other cameras).
Fantastic video explaining the "Why" extremely well. Thanks. Problem for an amateur such as me is not so much the processing but getting the exposure right. My new Sony A7rV is used for wildlife filming. As I understand it, to get the correct exposure I need to use ND filters. It's just not practical for me wandering around trying to find birds when I want the facility of taking stills as well as the odd movie. I guess I am better to stick to PP Off. But I did like the quality of S-Log 3 that you demonstrated!
I'd just crank the shutter and not worry too much about motion blur. Especially if you film in 60fps then a fast shutter won't look weird. A fast shutter will allow the details of the animals to remain sharp anyway
FANTASTIC VIDEO1!!!!!!!! KUDOS for taking the time to do a hands on set up...especially of the sony a7IV,,,,,so are you shooting ALL your videos using the USB C cable and OBS?
@@PhillipRPeck last question. If only using the USB C cable straight to your laptop are you still able to capture any type of Log style ? I guess here is why I’m asking. I’m going to be starting a new channel in which I’ll be showing how to do certain things using the Adobe Suite. I like to to be able to use OBS to capture both myself and the monitor screen. Yet have a good video quality. Any tips ?
@@safetyhomeloans950 I honestly have never tried streaming via the USB-C port on the a7IV (or any camera for that matter). But I haven't heard that there is any restriction in Picture Profiles that you can use. I always use a capture card and output video from the camera via HDMI so I am not any kind of authority on the USB-C streaming functionality.
I like the Cinetone for quick ins and outs where I'm not doing a ton of grading. More for interviews for me. I find SLOG redundant in my opinion it's not like I'm shooting for Hulu or any big time major movie brand. All of my work is on a phone and computer screen so I may use a gamut and cine just to minimally grade a look with one of my self-made luts but that's about it.
Well, I can tell you why I personally don't use S-Log: 1) My camera is 8-bit. I don't really like the colour rendition of Slog2, there is a lot to correct, which again isn't a pleasure on 8 bit footage. Slog 3 + S-Gamut3.Cine looks mostly great, except for strange red tones, but it's even trickier with 8-bit. You can definitely do it, but there is a second problem ... 2) Judging exposure is really not easy in camera. I don't want to bring along dozens of additional gear. I tried to use zebras, in-camera LUT and the histogram and metering all together but I just can't get it to give me consistently what I need to have as a good work-base for 8-bit only. I have watched dozens of videos on the matter, but I can't really get this to work for me. One shot comes out nice, nearly no work needed after the LUT, the next one looks strange due to overexpose even though I wasn't even hitting the clipping point. It just isn't reliable for me. 3) I shoot Cine1 with lots of custom in-camera settings done to the PP because my camera doesn't have S-Cinetone. From what I can see on my mobile phone, an Xperia, S-Cinetone is really great in terms of colour reproduction and setting a balance between too much contrast and log-flat. It is nearly always absoloutely spot-on in terms of subjective colour perception with no to very little work.
Thanks for the input, totally understand your reservations. Needing to overexpose is tricky because it's hard to target consistent levels of overexposure in camera. In post, if you use DaVinci Resolve, it's super easy to bring back the exposure to the proper level using the HDR wheels, but if you don't use Resolve, then you're just kinda eyeballing it. So, yes, lots of stuff manage and if you're getting good results in other profiles then that's all that matters
@@PhillipRPeck I tried Resolve, but I didn't really like it. The interface is just to overloaded for me and I don't do this professionally, it's more of a hobby I try to work into because I find it interesting. Using Resolve is like having to do a master degree for a second time to be able to make use of its full capabilities and I really don't want that. I recently got FCP, that's easier to handle visually even though it is certainly not equally powerful. For my needs, it's the right amount in between. =) I (ironically) just found another channel in my recommendations talking about exposing S-Log and what he pointed out was exactly this problem in judging/metering exposure. He advised to just mainly rely on the in-camera LUT ("gamma display assistant") and don't make so much science out of it. He argued that you can't even say "skintones always have to be between 50-60 IRE" (a rule of thumb which some obviously use for exposing faces), hinting at different lighting and mood scenarios. Whatever way you approach it, by eye or with external monitoring: especially with 8 bit footage exposure is absolutely critical. You need to strike a good balance between "bright enough for cleaner shadows" and "not too bright to blow up everything". That's really a tricky, very narrow gap at times, especially if you really need to squeeze out every drop of DR for a scene.
Hey man I liked your video! I can see why you and others would prefer s-log 3, although my eyes can't see a significant enough difference to justify the extra workflow over say...several clips in a project. I would though, still like to know how you exposed it for future reference. Cuz I would like to warm up to its benefits that I may simply not fully comprehend yet.
Not really my area of expertise but maybe just PP Off because you’re getting the contrast and saturation right out of camera. Just watch the highlights!
Only if you shoot with a low ISO. The base for PP Off is around 100-125 depending on the camera whereas the base for S-Log 3 is usually 640-800. That accounts for the noise difference
thanks for doing this! my biggest question around Slog3 is the best way to expose it. Everyone on TH-cam says expose 1.3-2 stops over, but its unclear if that's best for only A7Siii and/or if that's the way to go for A7iv as well. Exposing that much higher plus native ISO at 800 requires a much stronger ND filter to maintain shallow depth of field. For me, this is the major downside to shooting in log. I need to do some testing of my own likely xD
S-log 2 is more of a compromise for cameras with 8-bit 4:2:0. In the early days of the a7SIII, I think I remember people recommending it for low light as opposed to S-log 3
THERE IS 0 REASONS TO USE S-LOG IN VIDEOS LIEK YOUR. WHN YOU JUST SIT IN DARK ROOM. 90% OF CASES S-LOG3 NOT NEEDED IN ANY CASE. PEOPLE JUST THINK IT SCOOL AND USES IT. MAYBE GET 5% BETTER STUFF BUT LOSES HOURS OF LIFE
Do you shoot in Log profiles or not?
Kind of a hangup of mine, throwing shade on anything NOT shot in LOG formats - after all, the entire history of "color timers" working on celluloid dealt with really flat LOG-like developed film - but I must admit that the PP OFF samples looked better than expected. Probably a big part of that is your controlled studio conditions, whereas less predictable field conditions benefit significantly from the latitude provisioned by LOG for dynamic (and tedious) post-tweaking. It bothers me when labor-union-esque video boutique jocks complain about how dropping a LUT onto LOG footage is an extra, expensive, billable step - good riddance! - and that LOG requires lots of extra work. That's nonsense as you note, and the benefits far outweigh, including opening up the possibilities of using film emulation designed for mathematically precise/stable picture profiles.
My favorite thing about LOG is that I shoot with multiple camera brands like most people, suited to particular purposes and camera angles: so the flattest I can get these images, the better I can match different cameras (especially using tools like Cinematch).
I'm a big fan of S-Log3 but to be honest I've always defaulted to the subvariant of S-Gamut.Cine without really appreciating its added value (it has the suffix "cine" so I gullibly adopt it). Would have been interesting to see how that affects S-Log (probably imperceptibly?). I share your "meh" reaction to Sony's much ballyhooed S-Cinetone. Word to the wise: avoid engaging with its official grumpy evangelist Alister Chapman...
I think S-Cinetone can look nice in naturally lit scenarios, but I don't know why you'd opt for it over S-Log.
Thanks for your insights, that's interesting how LOG is viewed in sort of legacy, professional settings.
I was surprised by PP-OFF, but I suspect I would see a noticeable difference in dynamic range in situations without controlled lighting.
I might take your suggestion and check out the differences b/n S-Gamut and 3.Cine
@@PhillipRPeck Another thing I neglected to mention is skin tones; interesting how your scopes revealed pure accuracy as to the skin tone line, but one of the reasons S-Cinetone got attention at launch because it seemed to cure the pervasive handicap of Sony color: bad skin chroma. A/B tests are actually tricky because in your examples here, S-Log3 ends up making your face look a bit (pardon the observation) ready to hurl (or a few hours into the morgue), but only after flipping from the other profiles immediately. Still, skin tones remain the one delicate spot for me when it comes to Sony color. Curation of LUTs with care depending on surrounding lighting has been my only somewhat random, case-by-case strategy.
@@focuspulling That's actually what I look like 😅
If I use LUTs, I typically ride with the Phantom LUTs. They skew a bit warmer/redder in the skin tones. But a LUT or CST is never the end of it for me so I don't stress too much about the initial conversion.
But I guess it's all down to personal taste anyway because I don't mind the rendering of the base Sony LUT or the straight CST in Resolve.
Pp off is the best for me for practice
You can indeed change parameters for PP Off under Creative Look such as Standard (ST.) Contrast, Highlights, Shadows, Fade, Saturation, Sharpness, and Clarity are all adjustable.
That is true. I guess what I meant is that you don't have the adjustments in the picture profile settings like you do for all the other picture profiles like: black level, gamma, knee, color mode, color depth, etc.
Fun comparison! I use S-Cinetone in my home office because I record everything into my ATEM Mini ISO and that only records 8-bit. For everything else, it’s SLOG3. The biggest difference between the two is the amount of dynamic range captured - I thing log is at least 2 stops more than any picture profile which in the real world is noticeable. I’ve found the biggest impact on the footage is the lens I use. I much prefer the contrasty look and warmer colors of Sigma lenses. I’m planning to do a video soon about the difference between the two.
I didn't really consider the case for 8-bit, just assuming everyone would shoot 10-bit 422, but that would definitely be a case where you'd want to avoid S-Log 3.
I think I might do an outdoor or natural light comparison so that I can see the differences in dynamic range.
Interesting point about the Sigma lenses. They definitely have a warm cast to them
Good point about livestreaming; that's when I've used S-Cinetone too, which is a bit more foolproof than baking the conversion LUT into an S-Log3 stream (and it's easier to match with other cameras).
When shooting with PP-off, what creative look did you use?
ST. I've never even tried any other creative look. I should probably check them out someday
love the s-cinetone 😅 with a few adjustments and manual white balanced, you hardly need any more color grading 🙈
Thanks for all your efforts!!!
Fantastic video explaining the "Why" extremely well. Thanks. Problem for an amateur such as me is not so much the processing but getting the exposure right. My new Sony A7rV is used for wildlife filming. As I understand it, to get the correct exposure I need to use ND filters. It's just not practical for me wandering around trying to find birds when I want the facility of taking stills as well as the odd movie. I guess I am better to stick to PP Off. But I did like the quality of S-Log 3 that you demonstrated!
I'd just crank the shutter and not worry too much about motion blur. Especially if you film in 60fps then a fast shutter won't look weird. A fast shutter will allow the details of the animals to remain sharp anyway
FANTASTIC VIDEO1!!!!!!!! KUDOS for taking the time to do a hands on set up...especially of the sony a7IV,,,,,so are you shooting ALL your videos using the USB C cable and OBS?
Thank you. I normally record to the SD card in camera. I only record to OBS when I want to show the Info Display from the camera
@@PhillipRPeck last question. If only using the USB C cable straight to your laptop are you still able to capture any type of Log style ? I guess here is why I’m asking. I’m going to be starting a new channel in which I’ll be showing how to do certain things using the Adobe Suite. I like to to be able to use OBS to capture both myself and the monitor screen. Yet have a good video quality. Any tips ?
@@safetyhomeloans950 I honestly have never tried streaming via the USB-C port on the a7IV (or any camera for that matter). But I haven't heard that there is any restriction in Picture Profiles that you can use.
I always use a capture card and output video from the camera via HDMI so I am not any kind of authority on the USB-C streaming functionality.
@@PhillipRPeck thank you Phillip, I'll continue to my search ....BTW...got yourself a new Sub :) keep them coming!
I like the Cinetone for quick ins and outs where I'm not doing a ton of grading. More for interviews for me. I find SLOG redundant in my opinion it's not like I'm shooting for Hulu or any big time major movie brand. All of my work is on a phone and computer screen so I may use a gamut and cine just to minimally grade a look with one of my self-made luts but that's about it.
how can I get the S-LOG conversion LUT from Sony to use in Final Cut Pro?
pro.sony/ue_US/technology/professional-video-lut-look-up-table
Well, I can tell you why I personally don't use S-Log:
1) My camera is 8-bit. I don't really like the colour rendition of Slog2, there is a lot to correct, which again isn't a pleasure on 8 bit footage. Slog 3 + S-Gamut3.Cine looks mostly great, except for strange red tones, but it's even trickier with 8-bit. You can definitely do it, but there is a second problem ...
2) Judging exposure is really not easy in camera. I don't want to bring along dozens of additional gear. I tried to use zebras, in-camera LUT and the histogram and metering all together but I just can't get it to give me consistently what I need to have as a good work-base for 8-bit only. I have watched dozens of videos on the matter, but I can't really get this to work for me. One shot comes out nice, nearly no work needed after the LUT, the next one looks strange due to overexpose even though I wasn't even hitting the clipping point. It just isn't reliable for me.
3) I shoot Cine1 with lots of custom in-camera settings done to the PP because my camera doesn't have S-Cinetone. From what I can see on my mobile phone, an Xperia, S-Cinetone is really great in terms of colour reproduction and setting a balance between too much contrast and log-flat. It is nearly always absoloutely spot-on in terms of subjective colour perception with no to very little work.
Thanks for the input, totally understand your reservations. Needing to overexpose is tricky because it's hard to target consistent levels of overexposure in camera. In post, if you use DaVinci Resolve, it's super easy to bring back the exposure to the proper level using the HDR wheels, but if you don't use Resolve, then you're just kinda eyeballing it. So, yes, lots of stuff manage and if you're getting good results in other profiles then that's all that matters
@@PhillipRPeck I tried Resolve, but I didn't really like it. The interface is just to overloaded for me and I don't do this professionally, it's more of a hobby I try to work into because I find it interesting. Using Resolve is like having to do a master degree for a second time to be able to make use of its full capabilities and I really don't want that. I recently got FCP, that's easier to handle visually even though it is certainly not equally powerful. For my needs, it's the right amount in between. =)
I (ironically) just found another channel in my recommendations talking about exposing S-Log and what he pointed out was exactly this problem in judging/metering exposure. He advised to just mainly rely on the in-camera LUT ("gamma display assistant") and don't make so much science out of it. He argued that you can't even say "skintones always have to be between 50-60 IRE" (a rule of thumb which some obviously use for exposing faces), hinting at different lighting and mood scenarios. Whatever way you approach it, by eye or with external monitoring: especially with 8 bit footage exposure is absolutely critical. You need to strike a good balance between "bright enough for cleaner shadows" and "not too bright to blow up everything". That's really a tricky, very narrow gap at times, especially if you really need to squeeze out every drop of DR for a scene.
Hey man
I liked your video! I can see why you and others would prefer s-log 3, although my eyes can't see a significant enough difference to justify the extra workflow over say...several clips in a project. I would though, still like to know how you exposed it for future reference. Cuz I would like to warm up to its benefits that I may simply not fully comprehend yet.
Do you recommend a setting for vlogging? I don’t color grade at all 😅.
Not really my area of expertise but maybe just PP Off because you’re getting the contrast and saturation right out of camera. Just watch the highlights!
Do you think using pp off reduces noise? I noticed that slog3 has more noisy and pp off has no noise. What do you think
Only if you shoot with a low ISO. The base for PP Off is around 100-125 depending on the camera whereas the base for S-Log 3 is usually 640-800. That accounts for the noise difference
This makes sense. Thank you!
thanks for doing this! my biggest question around Slog3 is the best way to expose it. Everyone on TH-cam says expose 1.3-2 stops over, but its unclear if that's best for only A7Siii and/or if that's the way to go for A7iv as well. Exposing that much higher plus native ISO at 800 requires a much stronger ND filter to maintain shallow depth of field. For me, this is the major downside to shooting in log. I need to do some testing of my own likely xD
I don’t think you need to over expose Slog 3 to such an extent anymore. I don’t really see the benefit anyways.
Thanks for this very helpful
I’am learning about color profiles, but no profile is enough for the most of people that requieres no profesional use like me. Sorry for my English.
Does no one use SLOG 2 anymore? All I see is SLOG 3 now on the a7siii and a7iv.
S-log 2 is more of a compromise for cameras with 8-bit 4:2:0. In the early days of the a7SIII, I think I remember people recommending it for low light as opposed to S-log 3
Great job
THERE IS 0 REASONS TO USE S-LOG IN VIDEOS LIEK YOUR. WHN YOU JUST SIT IN DARK ROOM. 90% OF CASES S-LOG3 NOT NEEDED IN ANY CASE. PEOPLE JUST THINK IT SCOOL AND USES IT. MAYBE GET 5% BETTER STUFF BUT LOSES HOURS OF LIFE
SAY WHAT?