Jimmy G

some of those varicam names are too long, I tried them, no luck had to rename them to shorter ones.
If you can make the long ones work without renaming I will take back everything I said on this topic.
 
The good news is that they do work, because I have some of those loaded in the camera

In searching out more information on Panasonic's .vlt LUTs I stumbled on Lumix Ambassador Bernard Bertrand's video where he mentions being able to use the VariCam .vlt LUTs with the S1, as seen here beginning at the 1:47 Mark...
Lumix S1 V-Log - 422 10bit - Firmware - When Panasonic strikes again - YouTube: (t=107)
 
The VariCam LUT Library page he shows in the video is located here...
Varicam LUT Library:
https://info.panasonic.com/varicam-LUT-library.html
 
I just finished downloading that collection of 35 .vlt LUTs! And here's a brief sampling of some of them from Panasonic's VariCam & EVA1 YT pages...
The VariCam LUT Library | Panasonic - YouTube:
 
So if this actually works out as Bertrand advertises then it's looking like there's a whole lot more to "look forward to" and "experiment with" when I finally get my key! Woo hoo!
Has anyone tried these yet?
_____________________________________
 
After looking at the LUT names I downloaded from that Varicam LUT library I linked to, it seems like that 8.3 naming scheme is not quite correct either...

...hmm. :\
 

In searching out more information on Panasonic's .vlt LUTs I stumbled on Lumix Ambassador Bernard Bertrand's video where he mentions being able to use the VariCam .vlt LUTs with the S1, as seen here beginning at the 1:47 Mark...
Lumix S1 V-Log - 422 10bit - Firmware - When Panasonic strikes again - YouTube: (t=107)
 
The VariCam LUT Library page he shows in the video is located here...
Varicam LUT Library:
https://info.panasonic.com/varicam-LUT-library.html
 
I just finished downloading that collection of 35 .vlt LUTs! And here's a brief sampling of some of them from Panasonic's VariCam & EVA1 YT pages...
The VariCam LUT Library | Panasonic - YouTube:
 
So if this actually works out as Bertrand advertises then it's looking like there's a whole lot more to "look forward to" and "experiment with" when I finally get my key! Woo hoo!
Has anyone tried these yet?
_____________________________________
 
After looking at the LUT names I downloaded from that Varicam LUT library I linked to, it seems like that 8.3 naming scheme is not quite correct either...

...hmm. :\
 

8.3 filename for the luts
so 8 characters plus 3 for the .vlt extension

Okay, maybe I'm missing something obvious here, but...
That CVP video clearly states that to install LUTs into the S1 that one needs to "...rename it so the name is no longer than 3-letters..." as seen beginning at around the 2:42 Mark here...
Full Frame 4K 4:2:2 10-bit - Panasonic S1 Firmware Update - YouTube: (t=162)
 
...however, this LUT tutorial from Daniel Peters clearly shows LUTs with names much longer than "3-letters" being installed onto the camera beginning here at around the 1:36 Mark...
How To Install VLOG & LUTS in LUMIX S1 on Vimeo: (t=1m36s)
...perhaps someone with the DMW-SFU2 S1 Filmmaker VLog Update can clarify as to the correct procedure for this? (I'm still waiting to hear back from B&H for my upgrade package!)
Thanks!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zea3apd5pscumks/FlowersV-log.mov?dl=0
Anyone who wants to have a go at grading I have here the Flowers video in  v-log pro res 422 HQ
No commercial use.

Filmed on S1 with v-log at 4k 60p on Ninja v.
Graded with filmconvert fuji stock.
I'm still trying out grades, I may end up using another grade because Im not sure about the green colors of the grass. what do you think?
 
 

Magenta in the WEX video 100% a result of their grade. Aggressive NR is = YouTube's compression.
So here are some ORIGINAL files to play with straight off my card. 1.4GB's worth.
https://we.tl/t-rELYefyjCr
These are 10bit 422 V-LOG / V-Gamut on default settings. I recommend avoiding VLC Player to look at these especially on a Mac. Messes up the gamma curve. They won't play in Quicktime either. Pop em in Resolve or your NLE of choice and give them a good LUT. I used Fuji's F-LOG to Eterna BT709 LUT which worked well and built in Premiere Arri Amira LUT in Premiere was a good match.
Lens: Nikon 55mm F1.2 AI with variable ND filter

If it was a blind test I would guessed it was shot on something far more expensive. So I meant "good"

Yeah but they are going to Have to do something with AF a lot better than they are doing now. That is pretty unacceptable in this day and age.,

Manfrotto's BeFree line is in the same vein as that Benro (if that's where your hunt is going), my sweetie seems content with her CF photo (read: ballhead) version.
Alternately, I'm a big fan of the Velbon CF line though they'll double your budget at the very least.
Finally, here's one that caught my eye at B&H, EImage 760AT, with a proper (and quite capable, for the price range) 75mm Bowl Head that's right in your budget.
Hope that helps, and keep us posted on what you decide! :)

Now this is more like it!
Panasonic Lumix S1 (Vlog 422 10bits) - “AESTHETICELAND” 4K on Vimeo:
 
 

Now this is more like it!
Panasonic Lumix S1 (Vlog 422 10bits) - “AESTHETICELAND” 4K on Vimeo:
 
 

Now this is more like it!
Panasonic Lumix S1 (Vlog 422 10bits) - “AESTHETICELAND” 4K on Vimeo:
 
 

Yep. Just don't judge it off YouTube adverts.

When using vlog there is no minus, it starts from 0 and goes to 10
So you can compare my settings with -5

(One of my favorite reviewers,) Gerald Undone posts some of his initial findings with the SFU2 V-Log Upgrade which he picks up at the 5:44 (344s) Mark...
Panasonic S1 AF Firmware & V-Log Tests / Does It Now Beat Sony? - YouTube:
 
...and it looks like the 10-bit V Log is going to be a welcomed addition (sky gradation retention) for my outdoor nature/wildlife shooting. Too bad the 60P 10-bit 4:2:2 can't be recorded internally, it kind of defeats the whole purpose in shooting handheld run-and-gun style while out in the field (literally, ha!). Hopefully the S1H will solve this?!

Hi Mattias,
Just a few discoveries (that might or might not have a bearing on folks' evaluations) based on my watching your test on both a non-retina 27" iMac and an iPhone 8-Plus. The color rendition on the older iMac yielded a less color-saturated viewing experience than the iPhone's True Tone retina screen. Also, using Safari on the iPhone defaults to 360P and needs to be overridden in the playback settings to the max-available 720P for that combo, interestingly viewing on the the iMac via Firefox allows for 1080P resolution.
Thanks for taking the time to put together this exercise, I've been having some fun since last night giving each camera sequence a going-over as a personal observation-test and learning experience. I much appreciate your patience in not revealing the answers quite yet as I'd be a bit miffed at missing out on the chance to thoroughly embarrass myself here on the forum with my forthcoming take on the matters...
First off, can I say upfront that none of the clips wowed me IQ-wise on the lakeside sequences?! I'll get to that shortly...
Two things that stood out to me immediately (and could have been separate tests in their own right) were, 1. for the dog sequence, "why one should never shoot their pet at point blank distance with a wide-open fast lens indoors for the sake of exposure" and, 2. for the shoreline sequence, "can anyone determine the actual colors of that canoe?" Ha! For aesthetic points only, 1. in that most of the dog's face is in focus due to a proper depth-of-field/aperture choice appropriate for the subject matter, goes to B, C, D, J and K...(L is actually focused on your pet's nose! LOL) and, 2. having not seen the original footage myself it's hard to determine whether youtube's compression is adversely affecting (read: compounding) the original compression for each sequence.
Phew, having gotten all that out of the way, my IQ assessments (based on your "go by feel" criteria)...
For the Dog sequence I found I was favoring the warmer renditions that showed overall deeper face focus with K being tops followed by C or G. (FWIW, A is lacking vital detail to my eyes, B would have been a contender except for the cold rendition, C would have been a finalist except for the DOF selection, D is showing too much in-camera sharpening, E might have won if the lens DOF was more subject appropriate and its color flatness seems workable for post, F had color overkill for my tastes and the DOF too shallow, H failed on colors being too rich for my tastes, I's DOF way too shallow for pet photography/videography, oofah, J has overdone detail and way too cold for these eyes, L has some nice detail, too bad about the nose focusing and shallow DOF.)
For the lakeside sequence, none of the above...really. Just looking at the wooden planks atop the floating/bobbing dive platform reveal obvious codec breakdown across the different sequences (some handling it much worse than others...>cough< A, B, E, G, H, J) while viewing at 1080P, something that my eyes just couldn't ignore so I wasn't "feeling" any of them. Color-wise the three major fails to me were B, H and J for trying too hard to look like film emulsions. F is a blurry mess. B, D, F and I all lacking vital detail, conversely G and J being too crunchy with detail. C, D, F, G, H, and J all being too contrasty for my tastes or uses. And frankly (as mentioned) the colors on the canoe are all over the map and I dare anyone (with the exception of the OP) to know what its true colors to be! Ha! That I'd have to choose, then E for detail and shadow retention (giving me the impression that I might be able to do something with it), followed by L for seeming detail retention, and I for its codec (wood dock test) seemingly surviving YT compression.
Anyhoo, them's my votes! :)

Hi Mattias,
Well, my not being privy to the the fact that adapters might or might not be used in the various sequences at the time of voting (heck, there were pre-reveal speculations that there could well be cellphone cameras in the mix!) kept me (and others) from adding that possibility to my (our) assessments when voting. As part of my postmortem, er, "analysis toolkit" it was good to know that they were in the mix but there were too many sensor/lens combos and not enough samples of each for me to to consider adding that variable to my broad assessments and conclusions.
FWIW, my fear going into this test (based on reading many of the incoming votes over at YT and here prior to my own sitting down to make my own evaluations and casting my own ballot) was that the reasons behind the numerous votes were going to be equally as random (or more) as the different camera/lens choices being presented and that coming to any concise conclusions would yield as many random interpretations...was it about the colors for this person? or the tints for someone else? perhaps the dog's pose for those folks over there? maybe it was it about the framing? or the resolution (for those who could tell)? or maybe even the focus? was it about the codecs? or the device viewed on? etc., etc., etc... My pre-vote hope, the whole while being, that you had some "method behind your madness" (an idiomatic phrase that might not translate well) and that "all will be revealed" in good time.
So, when your own 3 conclusions turned out to be seemingly at a 90–180° variance to my own I was A. not unexpectedly surprised and B. presented with the challenge as to how to present my own findings as discussion points (and in a friendly conversational tone so as not to ignite some forum war. Ha!) as I truly wanted to hear the varying conclusions and viewpoints from my fellow posters here (and I did not wish to detract from the hard work you had put in. ). So I thank you for that enjoyable test and for your attention to my responses here.
 
Thanks for harvesting and presenting that data, it's very informative (well, for me, anyway) for this test. Using, for arguments sake here (that everyone will kindly play along), that "half the computers were laptops and half were desktops" then, quite nearly 3-out-of-4 viewers participated with mobile devices while on-the-go and the other 25% viewed on a desktop-sized computer screen or larger.
Sooo, what I get out of all of this is that there are some good fundamental lessons to be taken from your "blind test"...where visual production values are critical for the content producer (and their intended viewers) it clearly pays to invest in the tools that best suits ones needs and desires to attain those results, and conversely (and obviously) where visual production value (and audience) is non-critical there is clearly a lot (emphasis on "a lot"!) of leeway in ones choices for their production tools.
Many thanks again for taking the time to produce these tests and results and for your willingness (along with the courage and confidence that goes along with that) to share it all here on the forum. (Trust me, your lessons went well-beyond the "blind test" for this yet-to-post-their-own-content-on-the-internet participant. :D ) Best online fun I've had all week!
:) -JG
 

Smartphones are the worst thing that have ever happened to cinema... And 40% our audience!
But I do recognise what this test was primarily about... The overall colours and look of the lens. These can be judged from a smartphone.
But if the camera sensor and codec is levelled out by YouTube and tiny smartphones, it doesn't mean to say they don't matter!
I think the Pocket 4K's advantages were levelled flat, raised to the ground in fact, by YouTube compression & smartphone viewers voting... But does that mean I will stop using it for the incredible images vs something less capable? Nah.

We don't. The point is that you can't dictate what "dumbing down" means. It's subjective. There are no end all feature that means nicer image according to everyones taste and workflow.
I choose the best tool with the best specs in order to get the best possible results. In no way am I dumbing down anything. It just happens to be that tool is recording HD.
 

So would I.
Good job I make my films primarily for me, not for some sucker who can't be arsed to watch them properly
I'd also say that the kind of compression and mush we see in the otherwise lovely lake scene, isn't what any of us go into this passion for.
I'd go as far as to say everyone here loves the look of film and cinema. We all have our favourite movies and cinematographers.
If someone on YouTube, or some client, or some audience members can't get off their smartphone to appreciate our art, why do we owe it to them to dumb down our love of images?Why should we start believing that none of what we love matters any more? Why should we stop demanding more from our equipment and dumb down our craft? Why should we think that none of this technological progress matters, just because of a lazy audience, or a clueless clientele?
In the end we all had fun with this test and it reveals something very interesting, but I'll continue to revel in image quality for sake of my own interests and art, even if it doesn't matter to a smartphone viewer on YouTube.

So what's the most relevant; the light, the lens, the camera or the viewing device?
What about the grade, the framing, and the viewing order?

Just as reference here are the stats from the last 28 days on my entire channel.
Smartphone 40%
Computer 39%
Tablet 12%
TV 7,9%
Gaming console 0,8%
I would be completely shocked if even 5% of the computer users watched the 4K uploads in 4K.
 

What about the Retina display YT laptop audience?
Try using a MacBook Pro for a month and then switch to a 1080p PC laptop.
Difference is enormous.
I'd say 4K matters more at these kind of close viewing distances than it does in the cinema.