Leaderboard

I also get where you are coming from and that is why I bake the LUT into my footage. I set up all my cameras with 3 basic profiles based on ISO and WB for outdoor, indoor and low-lowlight scenarios. I say LUT, but there are actually 2x LUTS stacked; the conversion LUT and then my own custom ‘Look LUT’ which can be dialled in anywhere between 10-100%. It gets the look I want SOOC and it’s as unique to me as these things can be, is easy in the workflow and allows me to concentrate more on the interesting side of editing a film rather than the boring to me, more logistical grading. Only really works if no one else has a say in the end result and I’m fortunate that I’m my work, the grade is 100% my call.

I'm at a point where I ALMOST see no point in shooting log profiles. There are a few good ones, but most require more grading after a utility LUT is applied and/or creates scenarios where everybody's footage looks pretty much exactly the same. So if you're just slapping on a LUT and calling it a day, for 9 out of 10 shots, you could just use a standard rec709 picture profile and get similar results. With the advent of 10bit video, in recent years, most standard picture profiles look even better than they ever have with thicker color and near perfect skintones. Sure there are instances when you may need the extra stop or two of dynamic range a Log profile offers, or a specific LUT gets you a relatively quick look by shooting Log, but again... 9 out of 10 times, a slightly tweaked Rec709 picture profile will end up looking better and get you there so much easier without worrying about CSTs and color pipelines... especially since damn near ever Log profile is just trying to emulate Arri LogC which in turn was designed to emulate film. Speaking of, I have the Arri LogC3 software key on my GH6 and it's pretty good... better than vLog but it's still noisy as hell with ugly chroma noise in the midtones and shadows so I recently went back to CineLikeD and V and I am back to making a couple contrast and saturation adjustments and being happy with it. I'm sure there is a slight hit in DR, but nothing so drastic that I'm surprised or wish I shot in Log instead. So Log is cool, I'm glad it's available, but it's fairly unnecessary in most situations and can cause a bigger headache.

It’s a real fun camera to use. It actually brought my muscle memory back to the days of manual focusing. I remember when people used to talk condescendingly to people who relied on autofocus. Now it’s flipped. So funny. The negative comments I read about using this camera is mind boggling. If the camera isn’t for you, just go about your business. Why try to bash the person wanting to experience something different?

I just bought a used G9 without the LOGkey. That little bit of extra LOG DR I'm used to on my GH5 is leaving me wanting to go buy the key for the G9. It's not much increase in DR, you're right about that, but I do miss not having that little bit of extra juice to squeeze ... and, ironically, I do a lot of Standard profile 8-bit. So I ain't exactly super discriminating about my footage.

Love your insights, you should post more :- )

Went for a walk this morning. I was able to make a short video: Sorry for the music. Everything is hand-held. Shot it at various frame rates. Most everthing shot in GoPro Log 2 (the slow-mo shots are in Natural) and plopped into a timeline for cutting and added FilmConvert with the GoPro Mission 1 Pro and GoPro Log 2 profile. No grain was applied. Anyway, you'll get an idea of the colors, electronic stab, etc. I also wanted to say that I was able to update the ILS to the GoPro Labs firmware and use a QR code for putting a super-helpful histogram (better than the Lumix one on the GX800).