Attila Bakos

DR400 update for the LUT pack. Previous customers will get it for free, I'll send out the download links this week.

7 hours ago, Mako Sports said:

looks better than I thought it would, Slog 2 can be a bitch to work with. 

Thanks! This wasn't any harder to create than my other LUT packs, they are all math based, I don't do anything by hand. Although I had to choose S-Gamut3.cine instead of S-Gamut for a better match.

13 minutes ago, jagnje said:

what is she`s pale and has a reddish nose?

 

Then you tell her no problem sweetheart, we'll fix you in post. ?

My new stuff, details here: http://colorizer.net/index.php?op=slog2

If you have some S-Log2/S-Gamut3.cine footage, I can apply my LUTs to them if that helps to judge quality.

Created using an A6300 & X-T3.

10 minutes ago, androidlad said:

Guess you all forgot these two threads:

HLG shifts 2/3 stop DR to the highlight compared to F-log due to the difference in ISO rating (1000 vs 640, it's NOT actual gain). Their underlying analog amplification are all ISO640.

Yup, that might be the reason why people think it has more DR, but it's just a different mapping of the same latitude with the same analog amp. It has a bit more precision because it also uses values below 95 (10bit), and this MIGHT lead to ever so slightly cleaner blacks (when both exposed to the right), but it's minimal really. Choose HLG if you run into those magenta issues or if you prefer the workflow, otherwise F-Log is just fine.

33 minutes ago, chadandreo said:

Thank you for the detailed reply. I’ve used F-Log and loved the results I can’t imagine what the footage will look like with the extra stop of DR. I’ll give HLG a try. 

I suggest you do your own tests, take a contrasty scene, expose both to the right and compare shadow detail in post. I didn't see a difference in DR. Noise was similar.

Nope

24 minutes ago, androidlad said:

BREAKING NEWS:

Fujinon XF 16-80mmF4 R OIS WR with lens firmware 1.01 offers smooth flicker-free zooming in the entire range, making it the most video-friendly lens in the Fujinon line-up.

I'd love to see a video about it.

16 minutes ago, Sage said:

Its an optional Lut parameter that I've never seen used (when 0-1 is not enough). I learned of it out of necessity, doing extensive reading on the nitty gritty of what Luts consist of. I was coming up against a wall, and thought that perhaps look-ups weren't up to the task (why it had been written sometimes that they clip extreme data when used in a non-destructive color workflow). Resolve, for example, can't export them. I wanted to call them 'HDR' luts, but that would add confusion, as they will be set to 709 primaries. BMD Film is the rare instance in which the parameter is needed (for HR)

I sell some technical LUTs that fix incorrect YUV-RGB conversion, for those it was absolutely necessary to reach values below 0 and above 1. I didn't have problems in Premiere, although I use different headers than in Resolve. (DOMAIN_MIN and DOMAIN_MAX instead of LUT_3D_INPUT_RANGE).

Another example of Premiere supporting these LUTs is when you go to the technical Lumetri presets, they are actually 1D LUTs, this is the source of the Full to Legal range 10 bit ("c:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2019\Lumetri\LUTs\Legacy\FullToSMPTE10.cube")

LUT_1D_SIZE 2
DOMAIN_MIN -0.07306 -0.07306 -0.07306
DOMAIN_MAX 1.09475 1.09475 1.09475

0.0 0.0 0.0
1.0 1.0 1.0

What do you call a wide range LUT?

Isn't the Shinobi better for the same price (on B&H)?

1 hour ago, androidlad said:

Lots of good news.

Do we know anything about the firmware updates? Will the X-T3 get this new film simulation?

Edit: nevermind, just saw this picture:

19 minutes ago, keessie65 said:

Is the free version good enough? do you use this? .. sorry to ask, newby about Resolve.

I use the Studio version but the free version is great, lots of people from this forum use it. I'm typing from a phone now, can't go into details, but I found a feature comparison for v15, it's a good start: https://documents.blackmagicdesign.com/SupportNotes/DaVinci_Resolve_15_Feature_Comparison.pdf

8 minutes ago, keessie65 said:

the alternative, Davinci Resolve? Is there a trial version to download?

 

Resolve is free unless you need the features of the Studio version.

33 minutes ago, androidlad said:

Solution is to dump Premiere CC.

This one really works!

7 minutes ago, andrew_dotdot said:

I use the @Attila Bakos workflow where you use a CST node to convert from rec.2020 to rec.709,  and then make adjustments in whatever various nodes before hitting a second CST node to take it back from rec.709 to rec.2020, then apply the Fuji LUT (which is expecting rec.2020) at the end.

RCM, it seems to me, makes all of Resolve behave like the bits between the two CST nodes above, where you're always making adjustments in the rec.709 color space. You wouldn't put the Fuji LUT there between the two CSTs. Does that mean that the Fuji LUTs are no longer useable if working using the RCM with F-Log workflow?

Hmm... why is this my workflow? I rarely use CST nodes and I don't use the official LUT's.

2 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Prores 422 4k is twice the data rate, so I don't see how you wouldn't see any improvement. Could be wrong of course. Its also 422 vs 420

Efficiency plays a role as well, HEVC is way more advanced in this regard. The advantage of 4:2:2 might be visible, but I'm not sure about that either. When I had the X-T2 I used it with a Blackmagic Video Assist 4K. In some cases like fine wall textures I could see a difference in detail at 200-300% magnification, but I had to zoom in to like 600-800% to see difference in color transitions (4:2:0 vs 4:2:2). Now with 4x the data rate and a more efficient codec, my guess is that the difference is almost invisible.

4 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

 

Like a lot of things there's gonna be subtle differences as you are getting 422 and almost no compression with prores. Its gonna be low returns for most people. 

I got a Ninja 2 to record with my XT30 though. No time limits, 4k downscaled to 1080p prores, which is convenient as I downscale and transcode to prores on my PC regardless. So it saves that step for me. Plus I'll get 10 bit 422 where as the XT30 only does 8 bit internal. I got one for $160 with a 256gb SSD, so its honestly a damn good deal I think. 

I know the technical differences, but I'm not sure if you can actually see any difference, even when zoomed in. Would be great if someone could upload the same scene with lots of detail in 400 Mbps internal and ProRes as well.

2 hours ago, keessie65 said:

Filmed with my X-T3 and anamorphic with Bolex 16/32/1.5x. Taking lens Contax G 45/2 rehoused to Leica M. Used Ninja V for recording. 

 

Did you have a chance to compare the quality of internal files to ProRes coming from the Ninja V? I wonder if there is any noticeable difference.

1 hour ago, Inazuma said:

Is there a LUT that converts Eterna footage to Provia (Standard)?

During the creation of my F-Log LUT pack I gathered enough data to create what you need. It needs some time and coding, so it would cost a little. PM me if you're interested.

4 minutes ago, thephoenix said:

shutter encoder is just a gui that works with ffmpeg. i have to see if it does change the matrix but i know i can change colorspace to rec 709

must be my eyes because i don't see fujifilm flog as input in resolve rcm ?

i think i will install 16b2 i am in final 16 at the moment

Yeah 16 doesn't have it, 16.1 b2 (the latest beta) added it.

1 minute ago, thephoenix said:

what are your rcm settings as input ?

i am wondering if i do it right.

my workflow is that i shoot h265 internally then transcode to dnxhr using shutter encoder.

importing transcoded files in resolve. so wonder if it still as to be interpreted as a fuji file ? doing this for both flog and hlg.

same with ninja v usng dnxhr.

 

I did my tests using Fujifilm F-Log as input color space, then Rec.709 Gamma 2.4 as timeline & output color space. I don't use HLG but for that I'd use Rec.2100 HLG as input, in fact that's automatically chosen by RCM if you import a Fuji HLG file. (in Resolve 16.1 beta 2)

About interpretation of F-Log files (didn't test HLG yet):
If you use the Ninja V then you're fine.
If you use internal footage then you're fine in Davinci YRGB and ACES, but not (yet) in RCM.
If you transcode the footage by doing a matrix conversion from BT.601 to BT.709 then you're fine.
If you transcode the footage without a matrix conversion and you preserve the original matrix coefficients flag, then you're fine in Davinci YRGB and ACES, but not (yet) in RCM.
If you transcode the footage without a matrix conversion and you omit (or simply rewrite) the matrix coefficients flag, then the footage will be interpreted incorrectly everywhere.

It all comes down to how shutter encoder works. I can only help with FFMPEG.

8 hours ago, BrunoCH said:

@Attila Bakos 

I like your contributions. They’re very instructive. But honestly, I don’t see any difference between your pictures ( or not significant).

That's kinda the point here, that once the interpretation issue is fixed in RCM there will be almost no difference. Right now RCM is different from the others but yeah, you have to open the files in separate tabs and click back and forth to see the difference. A real world scenario might be more telling.

I tried to match the gamma & overall saturation here to see the color differences. Everything is done in the latest beta of Resolve.

1. WDR LUT
2. My ACES F-Log IDT
3. RCM
4. RCM with fixed YCbCr->RGB conversion.

WDR and ACES are pretty similar, the WDR has more saturated reds.
RCM is different in many patches, however if the input file is interpreted correctly it looks pretty close to the other two.
So in terms of color the differences are minor, once RCM is fixed. I believe the most difference will be caused by WB adjustments.

I'm not sure about this yet, but RCM seems to have some kind of color toning. When I try Davinci YRGB + WDR LUT I get colors pretty close to what I get with my F-Log ACES profile. They both convert gamma and colorspace only, there is no special color treatment. But when I check the same clips in RCM they seem to be overall warmer, the greens are more yellowish, the blues are more cyanish, like a filmic LUT already applied In some situations it will be more pleasant to the eye but I wonder why it's happening. Part of this must be caused by the bad interpretation of the files, especially the yellowish greens, but this alone can't be the cause of such a big difference. Will continue testing.