Parker

@Sage I'm still absolutely loving this LUT, and it just keeps getting better and better! 

I use it for pretty much every single project I shoot, S1 for A-cam and GH5 for b-cam, but lately, combined with anamorphic and pro res raw, it has felt extra tasty. I just love what it does to greens, especially. These screenshots are some standouts from the past couple weeks. Thanks for all your hard work! I recommend your Alexa LUT to all my lumix-shooting friends 👌🏻

@Wild Ranger looks awesome man, nice work! Gives me Robert Eggers vibes. 

@Wild Ranger looks awesome man, nice work! Gives me Robert Eggers vibes. 

Hi, I know this forum has been quiet for a long time, but I did not want to miss the opportunity to share this teaser of my next movie. All shot on a GH5 using GHalex.
This film began to be filmed in the middle of the pandemic, and now it is in post production to be released in 2022. I cannot help but thank @Sage for his work in creating this color matrix that has made my life easier.
Cheers!

Now I've "made friends" with the GX85, I'm now looking at its colour profiles.  I've installed the CineD / CineV hack from @BTM_Pix so are including these in my testing.
In these tests, I'll be:
Looking at what the colour profiles actually do, with a colour checker and scopes Comparing these profiles to the colour profiles of the P2K and Alexa Grading selected GX85 colour profiles to match resemble the P2K and Alexa Working out what the best combinations might be and just generally working out what setup I will implement First, what do the colour profiles actually do?
I took the GX85, 12-35mm f2.8 lens (at 35mm) in the 100Mbps 4K mode, and shot my colour checker in direct sunlight.  I then brought those into Resolve, cropped, and blurred a little for cleaner traces in the scopes.  
I actually clipped the white square on the checker a little, oops!, but no test is perfect and neither am I, however I think the results should still be useful.  Here goes.....
Natural - let's use this as the baseline.
For those unfamiliar with these kinds of tests, it is worth noting a few things though:
Firstly, this profile is NOT NEUTRAL.
Anyone who's seen a colour checker in real life can tell you that the colours in the two middle rows (the two below the greyscale) are all about equally saturated - ie, very saturated.  These are the colours that are meant to go in the little reference boxes on the scope.  Notice how the red trace almost reaches the R box?  Notice how the pink and purple boxes look really pastel? Overall the profile is much more saturated in the upper-left (orange) and lower-right (teal) directions.  This is a relatively typical colour palette that looks pleasing. Also notice how the colours are rotated towards those two directions?  it's especially noticeable in the teal direction where the blue is rotated clockwise towards the Cyan reference box, and the cyan is rotated anti-clockwise towards the Blue reference box. These characteristics give a nice starting point, and are very commonly seen in colour profiles in general, although as the name says, this is a relatively Neutral implementation of that look.

Scenery - it's basically the Natural profile with more saturation, except notice the green is pushed slightly towards blue to give a but more hue separation in the greens.  Oddly enough, that might help give visual interest with scenery shots!

Portrait: Similar to Natural but more saturation (less than scenery) but this one slightly compresses the skin-tone ranges, pulling the yellows towards orange and the reds slightly towards orange too.  This helps to mask blemishes and uneven skin.  Nice. 

Vivid is..... vivid.  Panasonic really deliver huh!  Like natural but with heaps of saturation.

CineD.  The legend.  Lots going on here!  Here's what I see:
Slight compression of skin-tones and desaturating right on that hue Higher saturation of all colours except yellow-greens (a hue I know I dislike) and mauve (a hue named after an old lady) Also slightly compressing tones in the teal direction
CineV which is obviously more contrasty with a much lower black level, and consequently is also more saturated than CineD, but is also slightly more "correct" with some hues being closer to their theoretically correct locations, for example, the Red is now almost perfect.

If you take CineD and pull the shadows down then you get something very similar to CineV, only with more saturation (contrast creates saturation).  If you then drop the saturation a touch to match, you notice that CineD creates more even saturation between the warm tones and cooler tones, whereas CineV has more saturation on the warmer tones and less on the cooler tones.  Note, this isn't a WB difference - this is with the WB set correctly on both profiles.
TLDR;  
Natural profile isn't natural, but is a moderate amount of a relatively common colour profile pushing things towards orange and teal, and compressing skintones for more flattering skin rendering.  Other profiles kind of build on this foundation and kind of do what they imply with their names.  
CineD and CineV are a bit more complex again, with the main difference being the amount of contrast.

The funny thing is, the bigger budget shoots I have been on, getting to use larger, nicer cinema cams, I usually also have a whole team of art design, beautiful set dec, gaffers and grip lighting everything so nicely, photogenic pro talent, hmu artists... By the time I get around to hitting the red button everything already looks incredible. Lighting is dialed, everything pre-planned, I don't really feel like I need the DR and flexibility of the high-end cine gear because it already looks incredible in-camera, and still would with much cheaper gear. 
Contrast that with lower budget, run-and-gun stuff, that's when I'm going to potentially miss white balance or not be lighting as well and having to push the camera harder. 
My point being, it's kind of ironic that on higher end work everything is so dialed in around the camera that raw, extreme DR, amazing color science, etc., is kind of a moot point, and it's on low budget work that I often really wish I could have that level of quality and flexibility to make up for other areas that are lacking. 

The funny thing is, the bigger budget shoots I have been on, getting to use larger, nicer cinema cams, I usually also have a whole team of art design, beautiful set dec, gaffers and grip lighting everything so nicely, photogenic pro talent, hmu artists... By the time I get around to hitting the red button everything already looks incredible. Lighting is dialed, everything pre-planned, I don't really feel like I need the DR and flexibility of the high-end cine gear because it already looks incredible in-camera, and still would with much cheaper gear. 
Contrast that with lower budget, run-and-gun stuff, that's when I'm going to potentially miss white balance or not be lighting as well and having to push the camera harder. 
My point being, it's kind of ironic that on higher end work everything is so dialed in around the camera that raw, extreme DR, amazing color science, etc., is kind of a moot point, and it's on low budget work that I often really wish I could have that level of quality and flexibility to make up for other areas that are lacking. 

The funny thing is, the bigger budget shoots I have been on, getting to use larger, nicer cinema cams, I usually also have a whole team of art design, beautiful set dec, gaffers and grip lighting everything so nicely, photogenic pro talent, hmu artists... By the time I get around to hitting the red button everything already looks incredible. Lighting is dialed, everything pre-planned, I don't really feel like I need the DR and flexibility of the high-end cine gear because it already looks incredible in-camera, and still would with much cheaper gear. 
Contrast that with lower budget, run-and-gun stuff, that's when I'm going to potentially miss white balance or not be lighting as well and having to push the camera harder. 
My point being, it's kind of ironic that on higher end work everything is so dialed in around the camera that raw, extreme DR, amazing color science, etc., is kind of a moot point, and it's on low budget work that I often really wish I could have that level of quality and flexibility to make up for other areas that are lacking. 

Yeah, I've made that point a number of times, except relating to camera size, and it's frustrating as hell.
As soon as you want something smaller, it instantly comes with less.  Less bitrate, less bit-depth, less DR, less IQ, just... less.
It's like the logic seems to go:
Me: I'd like to have high image quality in a small and simple rig The world: Then use a large camera Me: You didn't hear me - I want a small simple rig The world: Then use a 35Mbps 8-bit 8-stop point-and-shoot Me: You didn't hear me - I want high image quality AND a small simple rig The world: Here's an FS5, cine prime, 7" monitor, matte box filter set on an easy-rig Me: No, I need something that is almost pocketable The world: Why do you need something so small? Me: In order to be able to take it where I want to film, which is places where "professional" filming isn't allowed The world: If size matters then why do you need high image quality Me: I shoot in uncontrolled conditions with no lighting or control and need lots of latitude in post The world: Well, if you want both then..  um..  err.. well..  you shouldn't.  You should want what is available. Me: Why don't you make something with high image quality in a small and simple rig? The world: No-one wants it! Me: *facepalm*

The funny thing is, the bigger budget shoots I have been on, getting to use larger, nicer cinema cams, I usually also have a whole team of art design, beautiful set dec, gaffers and grip lighting everything so nicely, photogenic pro talent, hmu artists... By the time I get around to hitting the red button everything already looks incredible. Lighting is dialed, everything pre-planned, I don't really feel like I need the DR and flexibility of the high-end cine gear because it already looks incredible in-camera, and still would with much cheaper gear. 
Contrast that with lower budget, run-and-gun stuff, that's when I'm going to potentially miss white balance or not be lighting as well and having to push the camera harder. 
My point being, it's kind of ironic that on higher end work everything is so dialed in around the camera that raw, extreme DR, amazing color science, etc., is kind of a moot point, and it's on low budget work that I often really wish I could have that level of quality and flexibility to make up for other areas that are lacking. 

The funny thing is, the bigger budget shoots I have been on, getting to use larger, nicer cinema cams, I usually also have a whole team of art design, beautiful set dec, gaffers and grip lighting everything so nicely, photogenic pro talent, hmu artists... By the time I get around to hitting the red button everything already looks incredible. Lighting is dialed, everything pre-planned, I don't really feel like I need the DR and flexibility of the high-end cine gear because it already looks incredible in-camera, and still would with much cheaper gear. 
Contrast that with lower budget, run-and-gun stuff, that's when I'm going to potentially miss white balance or not be lighting as well and having to push the camera harder. 
My point being, it's kind of ironic that on higher end work everything is so dialed in around the camera that raw, extreme DR, amazing color science, etc., is kind of a moot point, and it's on low budget work that I often really wish I could have that level of quality and flexibility to make up for other areas that are lacking. 

The funny thing is, the bigger budget shoots I have been on, getting to use larger, nicer cinema cams, I usually also have a whole team of art design, beautiful set dec, gaffers and grip lighting everything so nicely, photogenic pro talent, hmu artists... By the time I get around to hitting the red button everything already looks incredible. Lighting is dialed, everything pre-planned, I don't really feel like I need the DR and flexibility of the high-end cine gear because it already looks incredible in-camera, and still would with much cheaper gear. 
Contrast that with lower budget, run-and-gun stuff, that's when I'm going to potentially miss white balance or not be lighting as well and having to push the camera harder. 
My point being, it's kind of ironic that on higher end work everything is so dialed in around the camera that raw, extreme DR, amazing color science, etc., is kind of a moot point, and it's on low budget work that I often really wish I could have that level of quality and flexibility to make up for other areas that are lacking. 

The funny thing is, the bigger budget shoots I have been on, getting to use larger, nicer cinema cams, I usually also have a whole team of art design, beautiful set dec, gaffers and grip lighting everything so nicely, photogenic pro talent, hmu artists... By the time I get around to hitting the red button everything already looks incredible. Lighting is dialed, everything pre-planned, I don't really feel like I need the DR and flexibility of the high-end cine gear because it already looks incredible in-camera, and still would with much cheaper gear. 
Contrast that with lower budget, run-and-gun stuff, that's when I'm going to potentially miss white balance or not be lighting as well and having to push the camera harder. 
My point being, it's kind of ironic that on higher end work everything is so dialed in around the camera that raw, extreme DR, amazing color science, etc., is kind of a moot point, and it's on low budget work that I often really wish I could have that level of quality and flexibility to make up for other areas that are lacking. 

I'm as obsessed with the Alexa look as just about anyone. I had a major shoot on Friday, I was toying with renting the Amira, as it is very affordable in my area. I don't have a lot of experience actually using it though, so ultimately, despite having plenty of budget available to rent a big boy camera, I decided to just shoot it on my tried-and-true S1. I didn't even use pro res raw, just regular 5.9k internal hevc. I monitor using the GHAlex LUT on my ninja v, so I can nail the look "in-camera" before I grade. I think it's pretty dang close. This screengrab has zero adjustments or color alterations besides just dropping on the lut. 

If I can get 95% of the way there, and have higher resolution to boot, at the cost of maybe a stop or so of extreme highlight retention in certain situations, I think it really starts to be hard to justify, beyond just impressing clients and feeling super cool and hollywood. 

That last sentence segment is key. 
Let's say each shoot has a small $1K profit margin. Assume there is only a marginal 10% improvement on extra future business from that client or their network (let's assume we're starting with a baseline 1:1 ratio, of each well done job leads to another) because you shoot with an ALEXA vs showing up on location with a "mirrorless toy".  You do fifty shoots per year (thus making a modest $50K/yr profit for you to live on).  If an ARRI Alexa Classic costs $5K, then even under these very modest assumptions, you'll break even on that investment after just one single year of shooting. 

I'm as obsessed with the Alexa look as just about anyone. I had a major shoot on Friday, I was toying with renting the Amira, as it is very affordable in my area. I don't have a lot of experience actually using it though, so ultimately, despite having plenty of budget available to rent a big boy camera, I decided to just shoot it on my tried-and-true S1. I didn't even use pro res raw, just regular 5.9k internal hevc. I monitor using the GHAlex LUT on my ninja v, so I can nail the look "in-camera" before I grade. I think it's pretty dang close. This screengrab has zero adjustments or color alterations besides just dropping on the lut. 

If I can get 95% of the way there, and have higher resolution to boot, at the cost of maybe a stop or so of extreme highlight retention in certain situations, I think it really starts to be hard to justify, beyond just impressing clients and feeling super cool and hollywood. 

I'm as obsessed with the Alexa look as just about anyone. I had a major shoot on Friday, I was toying with renting the Amira, as it is very affordable in my area. I don't have a lot of experience actually using it though, so ultimately, despite having plenty of budget available to rent a big boy camera, I decided to just shoot it on my tried-and-true S1. I didn't even use pro res raw, just regular 5.9k internal hevc. I monitor using the GHAlex LUT on my ninja v, so I can nail the look "in-camera" before I grade. I think it's pretty dang close. This screengrab has zero adjustments or color alterations besides just dropping on the lut. 

If I can get 95% of the way there, and have higher resolution to boot, at the cost of maybe a stop or so of extreme highlight retention in certain situations, I think it really starts to be hard to justify, beyond just impressing clients and feeling super cool and hollywood. 

I shot on the NX1/NX500 as my primary cameras from 2014-2019, before I moved onto an S1/GH5 combo which I'm still happily using currently. I couldn't care less about autofocus (I primarily shoot vintage contax zeiss or anamorphic) so the S1 is an excellent successor to the NX1 for my needs, especially after it's semi-recent updates of 6k internal, pro res raw, output, etc. 

I still love the NX1 and I don't think I'll ever sell it, but while it still has an incredibly detailed image, as amazing as it was back in 2014, no 10-bit modes, no 4k60, no IBIS, no log profile, really strong rolling shutter in 4k, and low light falling off a cliff above 800 ISO all keep it on the shelf for me most of the time these days compared to the S1, which is exceedingly strong in all of those areas. 

I'm more and more pleased with this camera all the time. I recently purchased the 1.5x aivascope anamorphic adapter (amber flare) and, paired with my trusty Helios 44-2, a little black pro mist, and of course that thick V-Log image, this little Easter Weekend run-and-gun lens test I shot last week felt effortlessly cinematic:
(this was even before the big firmware 2.0 update, so now I'm even more excited to try out some of the new anamorphic ibis modes and especially that 6k, 3:2 open-gate/full sensor mode.) 
Also: 12-bit, 5.9k anamorphic Pro Res Raw, anyone?! 🤯
The S1 is going for like $1500 used these days. Absolutely incredible what it's capable of. The best bang-for-buck in the camera world right now 👌🏻 

I'm more and more pleased with this camera all the time. I recently purchased the 1.5x aivascope anamorphic adapter (amber flare) and, paired with my trusty Helios 44-2, a little black pro mist, and of course that thick V-Log image, this little Easter Weekend run-and-gun lens test I shot last week felt effortlessly cinematic:
(this was even before the big firmware 2.0 update, so now I'm even more excited to try out some of the new anamorphic ibis modes and especially that 6k, 3:2 open-gate/full sensor mode.) 
Also: 12-bit, 5.9k anamorphic Pro Res Raw, anyone?! 🤯
The S1 is going for like $1500 used these days. Absolutely incredible what it's capable of. The best bang-for-buck in the camera world right now 👌🏻 

It's certainly far noisier than the in-camera codecs, that's for sure. But most of the time I'm lowering the ISO in post quite a bit anyway, and I actually quite like the textured, much more organic feel, at least for certain projects. It feels like there's an added depth and thickness to the images that I'm a fan of. 

@Sage I'm still absolutely loving this LUT, and it just keeps getting better and better! 

I use it for pretty much every single project I shoot, S1 for A-cam and GH5 for b-cam, but lately, combined with anamorphic and pro res raw, it has felt extra tasty. I just love what it does to greens, especially. These screenshots are some standouts from the past couple weeks. Thanks for all your hard work! I recommend your Alexa LUT to all my lumix-shooting friends 👌🏻

Thanks! It really is worth buying, skin tones just seem to get such a nice, beautiful separation, color-wise, from the rest of the image, and I like the way saturation is handled throughout the exposure range. 
All of the shots I shared were shot on the S1, a mix of internal 10-bit VLOG 4k60, 24, open-gate 6k, and the shots of the dude are all ProRes raw from the ninja v. 

Darn, @Parker, you nailed it! Shots are all from the S1 or some from the GH5? S1 or S1H?:) I was close to purchases Sage piece of art. But then figured I will do it for a S1 only job! Last one was FS700 plus 10percent S1 in the mix. Cannot wait to do a S1 only gig, once I got my rigging set!:) cheers

Thanks Sage! What I do to simplify the workflow in FCP is to add the full stack of pre and post LUTs that I need, make sure they're all in the proper order just once, and then I simply save the whole thing as a custom effects preset, so that I can just drop my single "S1 Alexa 24p" effect onto a clip and it's 95% of the way there. Definitely makes it much easier to use, and I've also been able to share this effects preset file with my assistant editors when they're handling my footage, so that I don't even have to try and explain the order or have to make them read your explainer pdf. 

As for the anamorphics, all of the shots I shared above were with the aivascope 1.5x (amber flare version) and contax zeiss taking lenses.