Same, I can actually see a real loss in sharpness compared to the Cine gammas (only in moving scenes with lots of detail) and the dynamic range isn't that much better than Cine4 on my a6500

Finx don't forget about the noises The unbelivably horrifying noises

Sean Phạm true, that's another thing about slog, while it may have more dynamic range.. the bottom few stops aren't even usable lol.

Finx lol even if we managed to make the shadows work, it becomes the normal picture that look just like the cine2. What a total waste of time. I don’t know if it worked in 4K, but at 1080p it is bullshit to me

Might ask Harv if he can do a comparison lol

Hey man just food for thought, maybe a video comparing S-log to cine gammas in regards to sharpness of the image in detailed complicated moving scenes like a pan on something detailed, like bushes or something (Something that 8-bit can't handle) I shot a wedding a while back and noticed S-log 2 really doesn't hold up well... much better results using cine gamma 2 with black level+7 and black gamma+7 Cheers

Ahh that’s made by triune films aka film riot 👍🏻

@@HarvVideoAudioStuff yes, i find out this earlier and purchased the whole pack 😀 I am wondering because you used slog2 and you didn’t use any convert to 709 lut, you have only used that Drive lut, did it also play the role of conversion? Thanks for taking time to reply, I am jealous of your video look, I was trying hlg3 now I switched to slog2 but still I feel I am far away from usable look - maybe I do something wrong with exposure

Ah yes if you use the LUTs that are designed for log they do the log to rec709 conversion and then take the footage a little further. It’s not perfect because they’re not designed for any particular log curve, so you could try adding a conversion lut and then apply your choice of triune lut designed for rec709 👍🏻

@@HarvVideoAudioStuff but if I apply the pure conversion lut (let’s say from Sony) then should I still use the slog-lut? As then technically it will be 709 right? As in your video you only add the Drive 😀. Also if i can stretch your kindness : in one video you add the curve after conversion lut, in this video it’s before - what’s your general take on this?

Yes you’re absolutely right, apologies, this what what I was trying to communicate in my last comment (badly!). As for the curves, I always add this before my lut 👍🏻

Many thanks, hmm I actually have no idea. I’d expect it to the the same as the a7r series (800). Really hoping the next a7s has a much lower native iso in all modes, or even electronic nd?!

Yes! I'm really looking forward to the next A7S. Sony must have something else up their sleeve concerning that like 4k60 and/or a 10-bit recording codec.

Yes indeed in the PP settings, any gamma other than LOG is linear :),

thanks :)

Nope, it's in the description :) maybe I'll move in higher up

FCPX 👍🏻

It was s.gamut3 cine :)

Well, if you like the results your workflow gives you, that's absolutely fine, but for a proper correction you need to convert gamma AND color space, you know that right?

Of course, I used the same colour space for all examples

I specificly asked which gamut he used for S-Log2 and he already answered that it was SGamut3.cine. That has nothing to do with Cine2 which he only used as a guide for exposure, as far as I can tell. Now for Harv: I'm not sure if we are talking about the same thing. Let me show you what I mean: www.dropbox.com/s/9s48znhk8pnyrbz/harv.jpg?dl=0 On the left you see the image with S-Log2 -> Rec.709 gamma & SGamut3.cine -> Rec.709 color space transformation, on the right you see only S-Log2 -> Rec.709 gamma transformation with added saturation to match the overall saturation level of the left image. The "right" version is what most people do and you can see this in a lot of tutorials, but this skips the color space conversion entirely. I'm not saying you can't work with it, but the correct way is to convert both gamma and gamut. As far as I can tell your base correction only includes gamma correction.

Ah but FCPX displays in rec709 and converts to 709 when you render clips down, I never notice shifts in colour or contrast so as far as I’m concerned ‘whatever works’ IS correct. Let’s not forget this video was about exposure, nothing to do with colour spaces etc :)

I mean waveform

I wouldn't usually shoot it at all, I just used it as a guide for when I switched over :)

Cine2 is very good, very very good, if you asked me. The ISO 200 is a life-saving thing, when compared to that 800

Hmm yes I think that’s correct, I’m using the a7s2 which is 1600 min

@@HarvVideoAudioStuff thanks for the information one more question for video wich one is better A7 mark III or A7S 2 ?

Can confirm XD

It may take a little tweaking but otherwise should work well :)

No it’s the latest version of final cut, it’s come a long way! :)

🤦🏻‍♂️

@@HarvVideoAudioStuff what?

I prefer log for almost every situation 😂