hyalinejim

They do have a chart of sorts - it's a few posts back.
Short answer:
Normal VLog = 4 point something stops above, the rest are below
DR Boost VLog = 5 point something stops above, the rest below middle grey

@kye I'm at risk of slightly derailing this thread and for that I apologise, but here's what I'm talking about

Top: WB in ACES (every stop is evenly warmed up)
Middle: reference
Bottom: WB in Lumetri (the warming correction is concentrated in the highlights)

@kye I'm at risk of slightly derailing this thread and for that I apologise, but here's what I'm talking about

Top: WB in ACES (every stop is evenly warmed up)
Middle: reference
Bottom: WB in Lumetri (the warming correction is concentrated in the highlights)

And I was caught by surprise that the GH6 is the first Panasonic camera that you could punch-in to focus (without recording it)? I was sure that the GH5 already have that - is the most loved video resource that my X-S10 have and a thing that I always missed when I used my Panasonics and Olympus.

@Tito Ferradans shows the latency here and it seems like there isn't any...  linked to the timecode:
CineD have their results up: https://www.cined.com/panasonic-lumix-gh6-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-latitude/


Other modes do a little differently, but one highlight was that the Prores didn't do much NR and they found they "show a very nice, organic noise floor with additional stops that can be retrieved in post-processing".
Considering that the GH5 combination of features suits me better than any other camera, and it's got 2 full extra stops of DR, which is cool.
Yeah, Media Division are spectacular.
Plus all sorts of other little cool things too.  So many things while watching reviews that made me think "oh, that's super useful - I'd use that".

Well, where are the cats?
The flowers...?

+1 for Media Divisions review.
I looked through the dozen or so GH6 videos in my feed and stopped when I saw Media Division had done one and just watched that.  They are the most level-headed film-making centric channel out there - both technically capable and also film-making aware so don't get caught up in tech for its own sake.
It looks like an absolute cracker of a camera.
My impressions are that although it's not teaching FF lessons like the GH4 and GH5 did on their release, it'll still be a solid presence in the market, especially for people who don't need AF.
I'm also looking forward to Andrews review.

Indeed! In the case of the GH5 there are only four (and a bit!) above middle grey, which is not a lot really. So even though the camera has maybe 11.5 stops in total, most of those are in the shadows. So if you expose normally for a wide dynamic range scene then highlight clipping becomes very apparent.

Yes, but (and for the benefit of anyone reading who might be considering a GH5) if you shoot VLog and get your footage into ACES space there are no WB or exposure quirks. The colour science is not so easily answered, however there is one solution in my other recent thread.

Yes, but (and for the benefit of anyone reading who might be considering a GH5) if you shoot VLog and get your footage into ACES space there are no WB or exposure quirks. The colour science is not so easily answered, however there is one solution in my other recent thread.

Have you tried WBing GH5 10bit VLog in an ACES colour space? You should be able to do it with relative impunity.
I know there's no GH5 IDT, but you can sandwich Vlog to ACES to VLog and get your footage back to what it was, but with WB fixed.
Incidentally, I don't think that GH5 VLog should be treated as Rec709 gamut. Admittedly, converting to V-Gamut gives slightly wonky colour (slightly pink skin) but leaving it as is gives much worse (horribly green skin). 

Have you tried WBing GH5 10bit VLog in an ACES colour space? You should be able to do it with relative impunity.
I know there's no GH5 IDT, but you can sandwich Vlog to ACES to VLog and get your footage back to what it was, but with WB fixed.
Incidentally, I don't think that GH5 VLog should be treated as Rec709 gamut. Admittedly, converting to V-Gamut gives slightly wonky colour (slightly pink skin) but leaving it as is gives much worse (horribly green skin). 

I agree on the importance of AF.
Especially in a mirrorless camera.
In terms of the market, Blackmagic seems to have got a free pass though. Shit AF all round from them, and nobody complains and the cameras sell like hot cakes.
So what's going on?
Sony, Canon and Nikon all AF obsessed and producing very capable systems in both video and stills mode. Fuji is patchy.
I thought maybe it's Sony patents holding Panasonic to ransom, or past mistakes. But then a literal Olympus CORPSE comes out of a graveyard and gives us Quad Pixel phase-detect AF on sensor.
It's absolutely bizarre the whole thing isn't it?
As for GH6, I have one but am under NDA so can't say anything about it until it launches for real.

Anyway, if anyone who doesn't hate LUTs, is interested in film emulation and does have a Panasonic camera would like to try this out I'd be very interested in hearing from you.
No hard feelings, @webrunner5

The film curves that I have seen typically have about 5-6 stops in the "linear" range, then hit the roll-offs pretty hard after that, so your curve seems to be right around what I would expect.
I recall a landscape photographer I watch on YT taking out a medium format camera with an older stock that had something like 5-6 stops in total.  After carefully metering the scene he took a shot of some clouds.  The shot was absolutely amazing - the moodiest clouds I have ever seen!  Just incredible contrast, but looked great because nothing was clipping and the image was thick as hell.
In colour grading I've found a consistent challenge is how to get the 10+ stops of camera DR into the 709 container and not make it look unnatural - the rolloffs on your LUT look pretty nice in that regard 🙂 

I’ll have another play later, but deliberately chose a tricky bit of footage!
I like Nitrate, but their Portra 400 is not even slightly close to film with S1H v log.
Neither is the Velvia which is a vibrant film stock. The Nitrate version is very flat and yellowy/green.
It could be they are all miles off with the S1H camera pack…
On the other hand, the way you can adjust the log footage is reckoned to be better than the equivalent Lumetri controls and my (limited) experience is that is true.
I will play with both later, your @hyalinejim LUT and Nitrate in general…

OK, had a play with your LUT plus a couple of FilmConvert alternatives:
Premiere, S1H log footage
The order is:
1 = The Portra Lut as provided, no tweaks
2 = The Portra Lut tweaked...albeit, I brought the highlights down too far 🤪
3 = Nitrate's version of Portra based on S1H log settings no tweaks. Err, a bit purple innit?! I wouldn't call that very 'Portra'!
4 = Nitrate Astia no tweaks
5 = Nitrate Astia tweaked
6 = Nitrate Velvia tweaked
7 = Nitrate Astia best I could get it 'globally' ie, without any masking skin type tweaks etc + with S 35mm grain
8 = As 7, but + FF 35mm grain
(7 = the closest I have got to obtaining the look I am after for my own work...but is still a work in progress)
 

I haven't been active on the forum very much recently, but I've still been reading and following discussions with interest. The main reason I haven't been around much is because I've been busy trying to emulate the colours of 35mm film for digital. I've focused on contemporary photo films (as opposed to motion picture film), trying to get as close to filmic colour as possible in Lightroom/Camera RAW. I've got quite good at it now: I can get a pretty accurate match. And I can use the same method to create LUTs for video that are also pretty accurate. However, post processing photos is a bit different to colour correcting video and I'd like to ask the forum's help in trying to figure out a few things in the LUT design.
(To date, I've only tested my technique on GH5 VLog, as that's what I shoot. But the LUT should work on VLog from any Panasonic, although colours will be slightly different as each model has a slightly different colour response.)
There are a few different components to my method:
1.  Match overall contrast
2. Match hue and saturation of colours
3. Match colour shifts in the shadows and highlights
Here is an indicator of its accuracy. On the top is VLog with my LUT and the bottom is the film scan (Portra 400 exposed at +1 stop)


Here's a link to a folder with the LUT. It's for Panasonic V-Log and emulates the contrast and colour of Portra 400 overexposed by one stop and scanned on a Noritsu minilab scanner with slightly reduced contrast. However, I've removed the colour cast in the shadows and highlights for the sake of keeping the discussion simple, for now.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/18RiY7dZ6AO87yMKArUvRDNKfouUVCu8H?usp=sharing
My first question for you guys is what do you think about the level of contrast? I've actually reduced it a little bit relative the scanner's default contrast level. But is this the right level of contrast for you?
Even though I've lowered the contrast level a little bit, it might still seem quite contrasty. That's because it's not designed as a "wide dynamic range" LUT that preserves much of the log signal, that you would then do further work upon. It's designed to give a "Rec709" level of contrast, so about 7.5 stops (which has traditionally been accepted as the average dynamic range of a scene). That means if you have a high contrast scene you might need to lower the contrast of the log signal before the LUT. Furthermore, it's designed so that middle grey as shot equals 126 RGB in Rec709 (almost 50 IRE) when the LUT is applied, which is what it should be. So any under or overexposure in the log footage will be quite apparent and require an adjustment before the lut. Basically, exposure and contrast and WB corrections should take place before, not after the lut. And, of course, it should be applied in a Rec709 colour space. If you can find a reliable way of making those adjustments directly on the log footage (you can in Resolve and After Effects, you can't in Premiere) then grading becomes very quick and easy.
Here are a few VLog stills with the LUT applied to show how it handles skintones, saturation and contrast.

I haven't been active on the forum very much recently, but I've still been reading and following discussions with interest. The main reason I haven't been around much is because I've been busy trying to emulate the colours of 35mm film for digital. I've focused on contemporary photo films (as opposed to motion picture film), trying to get as close to filmic colour as possible in Lightroom/Camera RAW. I've got quite good at it now: I can get a pretty accurate match. And I can use the same method to create LUTs for video that are also pretty accurate. However, post processing photos is a bit different to colour correcting video and I'd like to ask the forum's help in trying to figure out a few things in the LUT design.
(To date, I've only tested my technique on GH5 VLog, as that's what I shoot. But the LUT should work on VLog from any Panasonic, although colours will be slightly different as each model has a slightly different colour response.)
There are a few different components to my method:
1.  Match overall contrast
2. Match hue and saturation of colours
3. Match colour shifts in the shadows and highlights
Here is an indicator of its accuracy. On the top is VLog with my LUT and the bottom is the film scan (Portra 400 exposed at +1 stop)


Here's a link to a folder with the LUT. It's for Panasonic V-Log and emulates the contrast and colour of Portra 400 overexposed by one stop and scanned on a Noritsu minilab scanner with slightly reduced contrast. However, I've removed the colour cast in the shadows and highlights for the sake of keeping the discussion simple, for now.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/18RiY7dZ6AO87yMKArUvRDNKfouUVCu8H?usp=sharing
My first question for you guys is what do you think about the level of contrast? I've actually reduced it a little bit relative the scanner's default contrast level. But is this the right level of contrast for you?
Even though I've lowered the contrast level a little bit, it might still seem quite contrasty. That's because it's not designed as a "wide dynamic range" LUT that preserves much of the log signal, that you would then do further work upon. It's designed to give a "Rec709" level of contrast, so about 7.5 stops (which has traditionally been accepted as the average dynamic range of a scene). That means if you have a high contrast scene you might need to lower the contrast of the log signal before the LUT. Furthermore, it's designed so that middle grey as shot equals 126 RGB in Rec709 (almost 50 IRE) when the LUT is applied, which is what it should be. So any under or overexposure in the log footage will be quite apparent and require an adjustment before the lut. Basically, exposure and contrast and WB corrections should take place before, not after the lut. And, of course, it should be applied in a Rec709 colour space. If you can find a reliable way of making those adjustments directly on the log footage (you can in Resolve and After Effects, you can't in Premiere) then grading becomes very quick and easy.
Here are a few VLog stills with the LUT applied to show how it handles skintones, saturation and contrast.

Great write up and presentation. Thanks. Back then you matched the Gh5 to Canon 5d Raw. Now mercer wants you to match the 5d back to the Gh5.😊 @hyalinejim
Little joke, dear friends! Would also love some 5d3 magic in Kodak and Fuji flavors!
I am looking forward to test this Lut. Until now I still prefer grading the Gh5 more than the S1. Could be that Gh5 is supposed to be in 709 color space when in VLog while the S1 is in VGamut. The larger color space giving a different response and metric when working curves. Anyway, thanks a lot and looking forward to what we can achieve with your lut.😊

I think this is where the art and true deep-knowledge come into this whole challenge.
I don't know what tools or techniques you're using to make your adjustments, but there are a number of ways to accomplish something, and certain ways are more or less likely to break an image.
I highly recommend watching Juan Melaras YouTube videos where he matches things (and if you can find it, he did a video replicating the Linny LUT but pulled it down - maybe it's available somewhere else).  I suggest this because he does a bunch of really cool things using alternate colour spaces (HSL, YUV, Lab, and more) and using tools that won't break the image such as the channel mixer or curves.
It's obvious that Juan can look at the response of a LUT or look and see the big picture and knows what global tools can align to that look the easiest way without breaking it.
Have you read a lot of resources about film emulation?  Happy to share my bookmarks on it if you're interested.
What reference setup are you using?
I would imagine that you'd want to use as high a quality of light you can (definitely a black-body radiation source) and either the sun or a halogen lamp, and then just ignore all other lights as they will be inferior.
The other challenge will be the shape of the RGB spectrum sensitivities, eg:

The way that Juan has matched these is with the RGB mixer, although there might be some situations where that won't be completely effective, not sure.
Yeah, huge variation exists between batch, processing method and labs...
Steve Yedlin had a lot to say about that in this article that I'm assuming you're familiar with: http://www.yedlin.net/OnColorScience/
A phrase for colour matching that I really like is "in the same universe".  It accounts for how closely you need to match individual shots in an edit, but it also accounts for what @MrSMW says about getting used to the look while watching a film, which is absolutely a factor too.  We never watch the same scene through two different cameras / processes / grades, so differences have quite a degree of tolerance.
I have a theory that making a grade that allows for WB adjustments should be completely possible.  I never got around to trying it, but my theory is this.
The camera does things in a certain order:
light comes in and hits the sensor with its spectral sensitivity the camera applies the WB the camera applies the colour profile I think that the secret is to organise your adjustment so that it peels-the-onion by reversing the order of operations, like:
undo the colour profile (GH5) undo the WB (GH5) adjust the spectral sensitivity from the source camera (GH5) to target (film stock) apply WB adjustment of target (film stock) apply the colour properties of the target (film stock) The challenge is to separate the three layers, which in my case I was matching two digital cameras and so you could just take a RAW still image in each which allows you to separate out the colour profile from the sensor and WB.
I think you could potentially still apply some of this logic by building the adjustment in a modular way and shooting the colour checkers in a range of WB situations (maybe using gels?).  Then you might be able to adjust the WB and spectral sensitivity adjustments in their own nodes and you could see if they are compatible with the same colour profile in matching the reference images.
The order of operations isn't completely clear in my head, but I think you need to do controlled tests to work out the spectral sensitivities first using a proper WB, then the WB adjustment by shooting RAW stills in different WB settings, then the colour profile.
Hopefully that made sense?  It would require getting the order of operations completely down, and executing in a meticulous way, but if I'm right then it should be able to be done.
If you make it modular like I suggest then once you've done the GH5 version the Canon RAW version would be super easy.
The adjustment would only require reverse engineering the spectral sensitivity and WB on the Canon and then applying the properties of the film stock which you've already done.
Juan Melaras discussion on how he made his BMPCC 4K and 6K to Alexa conversions, and in my GH5 to BMPCC thread were very interesting and I think because he was just going from RAW to RAW he didn't have to nullify colour profiles in either camera, just having to do the two lower-levels.

Thanks for the suggestion, but it seems that there are already more than enough skin tone hues on the IT8 chart I'm using, from the point of view that I'm not able to match them all 100% accurately without breaking the image. So having more patches wouldn't necessarily help by any means. A broad problem seems to be that of metamerism: patches that have different spectral frequencies that are erroneously understood by the recording medium to be the same colour, introducing erros. I have already experimented with a range of commercially available charts, as well as attempting to design and digitally print my own. But I've found this one to give the best results.
Yes, this is the plan. So for Portra 400 and Fuji 400H you can get a usable exposure, arguably, from -3 to +7. The James Miller style LUTs that were so popular in the last decade and sold a million cups of coffee and other hipster products were very much based on the idea of underexposed film: lifted blacks, muted colours and strong colour casts highlight and shadows. On the other hand, slightly overexposed has been perhaps a bit more in vogue in recent years, in the style of Jose Villa's overexposed Fuji 400H wedding photography.
I have something similar that I've been using but will totally check this out. I can live with a little bit of artifacting, perhaps. And in this version of LUT I've posted, there may well be some: the reds might be a bit funky in places when they get saturated. As I've suggested it's totally a trade off between accuracy and image integrity. It's possible to get a 100% match for all patches but the image is destroyed by this. The trick is to hold on to as much accuracy as possible while avoiding banding etc.
Yes, but I wouldn't necessarily base an opinion on the colour hue on just one image. It's possible that the ambient light in the room was a bit green or that the WB tint on the cam was off - usually the Panny colours are screaming way too much magenta and in this example look quite reasonable. That said, Portra 400 does skew towards green, especially compared to Fuji 400H which is very much magenta, possibly reflecting the differing tastes in desirable skintones between the American (Kodak) and Japanese (Fuji) markets. You're right about the saturation though. I find it slightly low. Now, Portra is supposed to be relatively low saturation. But bear in mind that what I'm emulating is a specific roll of film, that has degraded since it left the factory according to the conditions it was stored in, that has been developed in a specific chemistry that may deviate more or less from the ideal C-41 recipe. This is a long-winded way of saying that I have seen slightly different results from different rolls of the same film stock shot at different times and developed in different places. It's something I'm going to look into a bit more.
With my lut it should be sufficient to do a little bit of white balance tweaking. But I've observed that it's, for example, sometimes towards red and sometimes towards green as you would expect with normal variance of colour temperatures. If you try to globally WB the Panny colours for skin then everything goes green.
 
Absolutely! And I'd guess that what Portra does is push greenish skin and magenta skin more towards the same hue. That's why skin tends to look so uniform with it. Definitely give Portra a go! It's expensive but the results are slightly nicer than the cheaper film stocks.
At some stage I will make a set for Camera RAW and Lightroom for digital RAW, but that may not be the preferred workflow these days.

Anyway, if anyone who doesn't hate LUTs, is interested in film emulation and does have a Panasonic camera would like to try this out I'd be very interested in hearing from you.
No hard feelings, @webrunner5

Let's take one aspect of the LUT which is possibly its most important: hue, saturation and lightness of colour and let's leave the contrast constant and compare the film emulation (bottom) to Panasonic's own V-Log to Rec709 colour transform (top). You might agree with me that one of these looks better than the other in terms of luminance and hue of skintones:


Portra 400 is famous for its attractive skintone reproduction, offering slightly desaturated, even porcelain-like skin which skews more towards tan than pink in terms of hue.

I haven't been active on the forum very much recently, but I've still been reading and following discussions with interest. The main reason I haven't been around much is because I've been busy trying to emulate the colours of 35mm film for digital. I've focused on contemporary photo films (as opposed to motion picture film), trying to get as close to filmic colour as possible in Lightroom/Camera RAW. I've got quite good at it now: I can get a pretty accurate match. And I can use the same method to create LUTs for video that are also pretty accurate. However, post processing photos is a bit different to colour correcting video and I'd like to ask the forum's help in trying to figure out a few things in the LUT design.
(To date, I've only tested my technique on GH5 VLog, as that's what I shoot. But the LUT should work on VLog from any Panasonic, although colours will be slightly different as each model has a slightly different colour response.)
There are a few different components to my method:
1.  Match overall contrast
2. Match hue and saturation of colours
3. Match colour shifts in the shadows and highlights
Here is an indicator of its accuracy. On the top is VLog with my LUT and the bottom is the film scan (Portra 400 exposed at +1 stop)


Here's a link to a folder with the LUT. It's for Panasonic V-Log and emulates the contrast and colour of Portra 400 overexposed by one stop and scanned on a Noritsu minilab scanner with slightly reduced contrast. However, I've removed the colour cast in the shadows and highlights for the sake of keeping the discussion simple, for now.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/18RiY7dZ6AO87yMKArUvRDNKfouUVCu8H?usp=sharing
My first question for you guys is what do you think about the level of contrast? I've actually reduced it a little bit relative the scanner's default contrast level. But is this the right level of contrast for you?
Even though I've lowered the contrast level a little bit, it might still seem quite contrasty. That's because it's not designed as a "wide dynamic range" LUT that preserves much of the log signal, that you would then do further work upon. It's designed to give a "Rec709" level of contrast, so about 7.5 stops (which has traditionally been accepted as the average dynamic range of a scene). That means if you have a high contrast scene you might need to lower the contrast of the log signal before the LUT. Furthermore, it's designed so that middle grey as shot equals 126 RGB in Rec709 (almost 50 IRE) when the LUT is applied, which is what it should be. So any under or overexposure in the log footage will be quite apparent and require an adjustment before the lut. Basically, exposure and contrast and WB corrections should take place before, not after the lut. And, of course, it should be applied in a Rec709 colour space. If you can find a reliable way of making those adjustments directly on the log footage (you can in Resolve and After Effects, you can't in Premiere) then grading becomes very quick and easy.
Here are a few VLog stills with the LUT applied to show how it handles skintones, saturation and contrast.