hyalinejim

Yes I agree.
The 'problem' with judging colour science with screen grabs or photography, especially in side by side comparisons, is that your brain doesn't have time to adjust.
If it's an entire movie or short film and has a specific colour, tone or whatever, we accept it much more easily, even if the colours are actually way off in regard to reality.
This is especially evident in sci fi stuff like; The Martian, Mad Max, Dune etc where none of the colour in the entire move it exactly 'real'...but it becomes 'real' to us very quickly.
I've looked at a few wedding films of a couple of folks I really rate and watching those, everything looks Captain Amazeballs.
But when I have done some screen grabs and looked at those as individual pictures, I like it a lot less.
We need to look at these things in isolation IMO, ie, the entire film needs to gel, same as a set of images needs to do the same.
That's what I am working on myself, - a film grading style that is not too heavy handed, but is mine and ditto a photography grade that is similar with both complimenting each other.

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.

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 love and enjoy to get to know about interesting things and to get and share feedback as well. Threads that inspire action to create and to dream and fantasize about it before. I have enjoyed many threads with that quality. They have topics like 8bit Black and White, 2500hour Pmw F3 Hd marvel, EosM hacked digital Super8, Roger Coreman and Jim Wynorski, matching 5d3 raw with Gh5. There are many vintage masterpieces and, thank Gosh, lovely oddities in the Eoshd archive.
I would love people to contribute more again in that manner. I will post in the 8bit BW thread again soon.
5rc thread has great info now. Thanks to all of you. But it's starting to get uber bloated. Thanks to lack of own experience and own results with the cam.
Let's contribute more to interesting content and honour writing, creating topics for ouselves as an audience and keep up good manners.
Here is the video from a classy thread I just mentioned. Matching Gh5 with 5D3 Raw. The powergrade could still be in the original thread. Thread and video created by @hyalinejim
Quality writing and work.

You might be able to check this for yourself by downloading raw stills of the studio comparison scene from older and newer cameras and then converting to DNG and then trying each of those workflows.

Happy Christmas Andrew! That was an uplifting post to read 🙂

Happy Christmas Andrew! That was an uplifting post to read 🙂

Happy Christmas Andrew! That was an uplifting post to read 🙂

I absolutely agree. 10bit 422 VLog is close enough to raw for me.
If you can set up your color correction that exposure, contrast and colour adjustments work consistently across the tonal range of the log curve (for example, Premiere's Lumetri doesn't, but an ACES workflow does) then it's effectively giving you the power of raw exposure, contrast and white balance adjustments without breaking the footage and maintaining a good degree of accuracy. But 8 bit would fall apart. 

I absolutely agree. 10bit 422 VLog is close enough to raw for me.
If you can set up your color correction that exposure, contrast and colour adjustments work consistently across the tonal range of the log curve (for example, Premiere's Lumetri doesn't, but an ACES workflow does) then it's effectively giving you the power of raw exposure, contrast and white balance adjustments without breaking the footage and maintaining a good degree of accuracy. But 8 bit would fall apart. 

I feel the same way about the S5 and VLOG. The latitude that I have with the footage I thought was only possible with RAW or some form of compressed RAW. After you discover 10bit combined with a LOG profile and Davinci Resolve there is no going back. 

I always wondered why they cannot build a "full frame" digi with lens, which is as narrow as a compact film photocamera. Olympus Twin, two lens in on, 35mm and 70mm, narrow, though with a stop or two in light loss between the two focal lengths.

A lot of this is due to 32bit float color space in NLEs. As long as the 8bit has enough to not have posterization the 32bit float will likely be able to fill in any gaps as the image is pushed hard. Grading is much easier for math to fill in gaps than say upscaling an image.
In the case of upscaling new pixels can be averaged but averaging doesn't work for fine details like a hair. Grading however we are trying to prevent posterizing.  That is done through smooth gradients.  Sometimes averaging surrounding values does perfectly.
For example if you have a color of value 200 and another value of 250 its easy in grading to averaging an in between value of 225 which still creates a nice smooth gradient.
Where 10bit is important is making sure the shot is captured well the first time.  Once you have posterization it will always be there and no 32bit float processing can magically make it go away. Visually ion the shot has no posterizing than no matter how hard it is pushed it likely never will have any or pushing the 10bit would show just as much. Thats why 32bit float was created.
10bit is a lot like 32 bit audio or 16 stops of DR that are graded down to 10 stops.  We record more so we have it and can better manipulate it.  Most of the shots above likely would have still looked good with 6 bits. You need a very long and complex gradient to break 8bit.  It can and does happen.  The more noise the camera has the less it will happen because of dithering. I think this is partially why Sony always had such a high base ISO for log.
Finally 10bit never promised to have better color, more dynamic range or less compression artifacts. Thats not what bit depth does.  Its all just about how many different color samples can be used across the image. The single and only real side effect is posterizing. Many computer monitors at one point were only 6 bit panels even if they claimed 8bit.  Most never really noticed unless they did something like use the gradient tool in Photoshop to span a full 1920 wide image. In the case of the clear blue sky image in the article that wasn't even a difficult gradient. Most of the sky was a similar shade of blue. To break 8bit you need to create a gradient going from 0 blue to 255 blue across the full 3840 pixels for 4k video. That means there is a unique blue sample every 15 pixels if you create a gradient like that. So your sky needs to go from black on one end of the screen to bright blue on the other side. Not always realistic but you can shoot Skys around dusk and dawn that spread the values out a lot more than mid day. By comparison 10bit has a unique blue color sample every 3.75 pixels for UHD video.
It doesn't even have to be something that covers the full screen.  If you have a gradient over 100 pixels from 200 blue to 205 blue that still means a new blue sample every 20 pixels.  Even though the screen area is very small. I develop mobile apps and when I add a gradient I run into the same problem trying to do a subtle gradient across something like a button. The gradient needs enough range to cover the area of pixels or it will look steppy. 10bit and higher is a safety net or guarantee to likely never have any kind of posterizing. In the professional world thats important and nobody wants surprises after the shoot is done.

Weird move frome Panasonic indeed. I wonder what the improvements would be but probably incremental.
Panasonic has always innovated, always took the lead when it comes to video since the release of the GH2. And I have started using Panny since I first saw footage that compared the GH2 to the much more popular 7D / 5D Mark II at the time. 
I had multiple bodies over the years. First the GH3, bought on the day of release. The GH5 and GH5-S, same story. At first the S1 didn't appeal to me much, because I was shooting with a GH5-s with speedbooster already and the upgrade looked incremental due to a lack of 4k 60 fps in 10-bit. The S1H was too expensive.
But I couldn't resist the urge to go for a better sensor, so after a year or so I sold off my GH5, GH5-s, G7 and speed boosters and lenses. Now I have S1's, an S5 and I recently bought a 2nd hand S1H for a very good price.
It's interesting how I now have zero interest anymore in a new GH-camera. Or even new camera's from other brands that aren't major upgrades with tons of new features. I'm satisfied. I reached the point of 'this is good enough for years to come'. Finally. After all the camera's I own, I now no longer care about gear.
I mean, I can now shoot 4k 50 fps in 10-bit LOG with incredible dynamic range in anamorphic mode with anamorphic preview and even anamorphic compensated IBIS. I got myself a set of Sirui lenses with modified L-mounts and called it a day. In 4:3 mode the sensor crop is slightly taller than the 16:9 s35 crop, leading to a crop factor of around 1.35x when shooting with a 1.33x anamorphic lens. That's close enough to full frame to me. 
And when the project calls for it, or I need to go a little wider, I can change to the 5.4k 3:2 mode. Amazing really. The camera's are a joy to operate. The buttons feel 'right'. The EVF's are brilliant (minus the one of the S5). I got a Sigma 85mm f1.4 DN and a Lumix 24-70 for photography and the AF is very good. More than good enough for the kind of photo's I take.
Why am I writing this? Because I think many people feel like this in 2021. The current gear on the market is so 'affordable' and good and unlike 5 years ago, there is plenty of competition and alternative in the video world.
I honestly can't see what a GH6 would bring to the table to make me enthousastic for even a second. I think GH-folks also underestimate how good the S1-line camera's are these days, especially ater the firmware updates. Much cleaner images. It's just a shame you can't use your GH-glass on the the S-camera's. But I think most of us were on some kind of speedbooster anyway. So nothing changes there. And Panasonic knows it. They can't release a €2000,- GH6 that is worse in a lot of things than their S1 / S5 due to the smaller sensor. And cheaper is probably not viable for Panasonic. They simply aren't as big as Sony or Canon and don't sell that much.
It's funny how good Panasonic has treated us videomakers since forever, but marketingwise they aren't exactly like Apple. The product presentations with the old uncharismatic men. The 'Lumix' brand, which has as much appeal as a Toyota. I feel like they could have accomplished so much more if they had a more established brand. Or if people would take them more serious. And what was that cinema box release last year. Or that G100 'VLOGGING camera'  with shitty AF and no IBIS. Video quality and feature wise, Panasonic always has been on top. And still, the competition (a7sIII / Canon R5) offer no anamorphic modes, overheat and lack a lot of monitoring tools.
How many times I have heard from people 'What is that? A Lumix??'. 'Yea it's Panasonic'. 
And Panasonic is even a known name in the cinema world with their Varicams. The brand Lumix shouldn't have existed. The same goes for 'Micro four thirds'. Which man wants to have anything Micro in life? It always sounded like a compromise. Micro is better, until the 'Full Frame' (as in, the complete picture) steps up. And it has. A S5 or similar offerings from other brands is now under € 2000,-. 
I say it's game over for small sensors. And Panasonic has some work to do with their branding and future releases. Because I fear for their future as well.
But as long as my S-line camera's keep working, I will be shooting 10-bit anamorphic slowmo in LOG with 12.4 stops dynamic range, in body stabilised, for years to come. 
 

Andrew, you're a smart guy.  So I guess you're just pretending not to know the real reason.  Welcome to the WOKE SOCIETY.  No one is allowed to be different anymore.  Free speech?  Not any more!   Still believe in biology?  You MUST be canceled, then. We've come full circle and Galileo is to be locked up in the tower again for daring to be a rebel....a CORRECT rebel at that.  So even though the FP and FP-L are in fact amazing cameras we live in a world of little snowflalkes.... but snowflakes that must ALL BE ALIKE.... even though everyone knows no two are alike.  Boys can be girls, girls can be boys, but don't you dare praise a camera for being unique.  It's the UNwoke camera.  Welcome to Alice in Wonderland where things are backwards and upside-down and common sense makes no sense to so many.  I ran out and purchased an FP months ago in large part due to your excellent review and praise and it's one of the coolest little cameras I've ever owned. It can be a stripped-down convertible or a laced-up high performance racer depending on how I kit it out.  Appreciate your defense of the little guy but they will never "get" it.  "They weren't listening then, they're not listening now.  Perhaps they never will."  - Don McLean

If you're doing this creatively or as a hobby it's very daunting to be faced with the best of the world's output.
I faced this problem recently when I was starting to post some creative photography on Instagram. One negative thought that I had was, indeed, "what's the point of making and posting work when thousands of others are doing the same thing, only better than me?"
The answer for me, in this context, was that there is still a local audience. And while the pics I was posting were nothing spectacular in a global arena, they were pretty good compared to what others were doing in my local area. I built up a respectable following after a while, 99% of which were genuine local followers.
Similarly, I used to do a bit of documentary film making, but haven't for a while. But when I was it was fairly easy to get a screening at a local or national film festival, and quite a bit less likely for me to be screened internationally. The local festivals were lots of fun. I met great people and had a great time. The slightly more prestigious international festivals (when I was able to travel to them) were like a special treat in comparison, all the better for being a little bit more rare.
So I would say: find your audience. You don't need to be broadcasting to millions or even thousands on YouTube. If you make a video about your granny's cat she'll absolutely love it, and you'll feel good too!

If you're doing this creatively or as a hobby it's very daunting to be faced with the best of the world's output.
I faced this problem recently when I was starting to post some creative photography on Instagram. One negative thought that I had was, indeed, "what's the point of making and posting work when thousands of others are doing the same thing, only better than me?"
The answer for me, in this context, was that there is still a local audience. And while the pics I was posting were nothing spectacular in a global arena, they were pretty good compared to what others were doing in my local area. I built up a respectable following after a while, 99% of which were genuine local followers.
Similarly, I used to do a bit of documentary film making, but haven't for a while. But when I was it was fairly easy to get a screening at a local or national film festival, and quite a bit less likely for me to be screened internationally. The local festivals were lots of fun. I met great people and had a great time. The slightly more prestigious international festivals (when I was able to travel to them) were like a special treat in comparison, all the better for being a little bit more rare.
So I would say: find your audience. You don't need to be broadcasting to millions or even thousands on YouTube. If you make a video about your granny's cat she'll absolutely love it, and you'll feel good too!

If you're doing this creatively or as a hobby it's very daunting to be faced with the best of the world's output.
I faced this problem recently when I was starting to post some creative photography on Instagram. One negative thought that I had was, indeed, "what's the point of making and posting work when thousands of others are doing the same thing, only better than me?"
The answer for me, in this context, was that there is still a local audience. And while the pics I was posting were nothing spectacular in a global arena, they were pretty good compared to what others were doing in my local area. I built up a respectable following after a while, 99% of which were genuine local followers.
Similarly, I used to do a bit of documentary film making, but haven't for a while. But when I was it was fairly easy to get a screening at a local or national film festival, and quite a bit less likely for me to be screened internationally. The local festivals were lots of fun. I met great people and had a great time. The slightly more prestigious international festivals (when I was able to travel to them) were like a special treat in comparison, all the better for being a little bit more rare.
So I would say: find your audience. You don't need to be broadcasting to millions or even thousands on YouTube. If you make a video about your granny's cat she'll absolutely love it, and you'll feel good too!

If you're doing this creatively or as a hobby it's very daunting to be faced with the best of the world's output.
I faced this problem recently when I was starting to post some creative photography on Instagram. One negative thought that I had was, indeed, "what's the point of making and posting work when thousands of others are doing the same thing, only better than me?"
The answer for me, in this context, was that there is still a local audience. And while the pics I was posting were nothing spectacular in a global arena, they were pretty good compared to what others were doing in my local area. I built up a respectable following after a while, 99% of which were genuine local followers.
Similarly, I used to do a bit of documentary film making, but haven't for a while. But when I was it was fairly easy to get a screening at a local or national film festival, and quite a bit less likely for me to be screened internationally. The local festivals were lots of fun. I met great people and had a great time. The slightly more prestigious international festivals (when I was able to travel to them) were like a special treat in comparison, all the better for being a little bit more rare.
So I would say: find your audience. You don't need to be broadcasting to millions or even thousands on YouTube. If you make a video about your granny's cat she'll absolutely love it, and you'll feel good too!

I've had a bunch of fun with 35mm film camera bodies, a few rolls of film and my existing lens collection. 
Started with Olympus OM bodies that I used my manual focus Zuiko's on.
Also shot a bunch on Canon EOS bodies with EF lenses. This is autofocus, auto everything, if you want it.
Everyone has a Canon lens lying around, right? Give it a go! It's loads of fun.
You can still get a crappy Canon for almost nothing. Check out the specs at:
https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product_search_result.html?t=camera&s=film&s2=eos&a=E&sort=new

I've had a bunch of fun with 35mm film camera bodies, a few rolls of film and my existing lens collection. 
Started with Olympus OM bodies that I used my manual focus Zuiko's on.
Also shot a bunch on Canon EOS bodies with EF lenses. This is autofocus, auto everything, if you want it.
Everyone has a Canon lens lying around, right? Give it a go! It's loads of fun.
You can still get a crappy Canon for almost nothing. Check out the specs at:
https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product_search_result.html?t=camera&s=film&s2=eos&a=E&sort=new

I was thinking of a constant correction that you could just apply to all clips and forget about it.
For my GH5 I use a lut I made that mimics Portra 400 film. It works fine on the S1 too as long as the input is V-Log V-gamut in a Rec709 colour space. It's quite contrasty so the signal might need adjusting before the lut to bring the image within range (grading should be done on the VLog signal before the lut, not after).
But skintones should be very nice:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WC3uiROs7-088UeBHwPpwPLQxsuzZPju/view?usp=sharing
 

I agree with all of your post, but I have found that film's colours are generally less true to life than contemporary digital video.
 
Absolutely agree.
I often blur photos, particularly if I add grain. Otherwise it doesn't look right. 

You should try shooting a roll of 35mm still. The skin tone, color, and look are you get from film are absolutely amazing. It just looks right.
I would imagine the guys on that colorist forum are likely a lot of veteran colorists that most likely value work flow over everything. 
I know this dude grades a ton of stuff shot on 35mm. Beautiful work. 
https://www.company3.com/artists/stefan-sonnenfeld/