Since making my last few videos on the gammas,
log, and subsampling for Sony cameras,
I've received an impressive amount of questions
from you guys wanting additional information and advice.
So, today we're going to try as many of those as possible.
Let's get Undone.
[offbeat music]
♪ Gerald Undone ♪
♪ He's crazy ♪
What's happening, everybody? I'm Gerald Undone
and I've not yee'd my last haw yet.
Alright, so here's how we're going to do this.
I'm going to list all of the questions we're going to cover
and provide timestamps in case you want to jump around,
and as usual, I'll put a table of contents in the description.
And because we'll be covering a bunch of topics,
we're not gonna be able to go too far in depth
with any of them to prevent bloating the video too much.
And I'm also gonna try and keep these concepts
accessible enough that even non-Sony users
will find some value here as well.
And speaking to you non-Sony users, don't worry,
I know with this recent string of videos--
I'm not becoming a Sony-only channel. We're gonna get back
to our regular antics right after this video.
Oh yeah, and I'm just getting over bronchitis,
so if I sound like I've been eating sandpaper, that's why.
So, here are the questions: Was this video shot using HLG?
Do you use any LUTs? What did you do for white balance?
Isn't HLG for HDR only and thus shouldn't be graded?
Why shoot in BT.2020 if you're just gonna convert it?
And how do you convert BT.2020 to Rec.709?
Have you tried ProColor or Cody Blue settings?
What did you mean by "neutral picture profile" settings?
How do you match the different profiles?
And can you provide some grading tips?
Alright, so let's start working through these.
Was this video shot with HLG?
Now, this question was obviously asked about
one of the previous videos, but to keep it simple,
all the previous videos are shot using the same setup.
So, unless otherwise stated, like when I provide
different samples, this talking head is almost always
recorded on a Panasonic GH5 using 10-bit HLG
and recorded onto the Atomos Ninja V.
I grade that footage in Premiere and start by using
a technical LUT from Paul Leeming,
which goes to answer out second question.
Yes, I do use LUTs for corrective purposes,
but I'm not a big fan of creative or artistic LUTs.
I like to do the creative portion of the grade myself,
but it helps when someone who has the tools
and the experience gets you started in the right direction
and with accurate colour. And for that purpose,
I highly recommend the Leeming LUTs.
Now, this video's not sponsored in any way
and I don't make any money off the sale of these LUTs,
but they worked really well for me and so if you wanna give
them a try, I'll put a link in the description below.
He supports a lot of different cameras,
including the Cine, HLG and S-Log for the Sony cameras,
but we'll talk more about dealing with that HLG clip
in Premiere in a moment. Next up, white balance.
Whenever I do testing and comparisons, I almost always
set a custom white balance off of a grey card.
I made a whole video about this, which I recommend
you check out if you haven't yet.
Basically, it keeps your shots more consistent
for the testing purposes and this talking headshot
on the GH5 right now was also set
with a custom white balance using this grey card.
Next question, which is about misconceptions about HLG.
Yes, HLG is intended for delivery in HDR.
And when kept in the 2020 space, it's true
that it doesn't grade as well as you might expect
a true Log profile to. But when used in a 709
timeline, those concerns are no longer relevant,
and what you're left with is excellent dynamic range,
a clean image and terrific colour potential.
And for those of you that don't know much about 2020
or 709, basically they're standards for how to display
an image on television.
It's the ITU-R Recommendation BT.2020
or BT.709, which is usually shortened to Rec
as in Rec.709 or as in BT.2020.
These recommendations cover many aspects,
including frame rate, bit depth and luma representations,
but any easier way to visualize it
is by the wider chromaticity.
BT.2020 allows for more colours and brighter ones,
which brings us to the next question I get asked a lot,
which is why shoot in 2020 if you're just going to convert
to 709, with many Sony users adding that choosing 709 as
the colour mode for HLG makes for a better looking image.
And they're not wrong. Right out of the camera,
the 709 will look better and that's kind of the point.
Unless you have a 2020 display,
the 709 content will look better because it's intended
for the 709 display you're viewing it on,
but that doesn't mean we shouldn't shoot in 2020.
First of all, shooting in 2020 will give you
better matching capabilities.
It'll match all the other cameras
that choose 2020 automatically when using HLG
or that don't have a built-in 709 conversion,
which is why most of the correction LUTs
are based on 2020. So, if you want to use a LUT
to make your life easier, like the Leeming LUT
I recommended, you'll have to shoot in 2020
or the LUTs not going to work. Also, you'll retain
full colour information, even if you can't see it
on your display so that when we bring it down to 709,
you'll have a better range to work with
and you'll be retaining that HDR content
so if you ever wanted to use that clip again in the future
for HDR delivery, it'll still be useful
where the 709 clip wouldn't be.
And, this is where a lot of you asked how to convert
2020 to 709, and of course, this depends on your NLE.
In Premiere Pro, it's essentially automatic
because Lumetri works in a Rec.709 color space
and converts for linear processing,
which is another reason the concern about
the non-linear response when grading HLG
is nothing to worry about because it's treated as linear
and grades beautifully when using a linear 709 tool.
Now, you will find that the image looks flat and green
when viewing HLG in 709, but this is completely normal.
It's here where you want to work with the curves
to get the image to get to look how you want,
but again, if you're using the correction LUT,
you can just skip these steps.
So, here's some GH5 HLG footage, completely untouched.
All I did was drop it into my timeline,
which is automatically Rec.709 in Premiere.
And, if we open this up in Lumetri and choose to add
the Leeming LUT for HLG for the GH5,
the battle's mostly won.
And then we could just move down and tweak the image to taste.
This is the same for Final Cut Pro in terms of the LUT.
Simply applying the Leeming LUT will correct
your HLG footage, but there is an extra step
with regard to colour space.
First off, you want to make sure your project is set
to standard gamut, but even then,
your clips will look blown out. So, you have to go down
to "Inspector" and choose "Basics" then "Settings"
then choose Rec.709 in the colour space override,
then your clips will look flat and green
like I showed you in Premiere. Now, I don't have Final Cut
because I'm a PC editor, so I can't really show you
a proper demo, but I will put a link to a guide
in the description below that will show you how to do this
step by step and will also show you how to add a LUT
from this stage. In Resolve, if you want to work
with HLG natively, you'll have to go into
the "Project Settings" "Color Management" section
and change the input and timeline colour space
to Rec. 2020 HLG, and then change the output colour space
to Rec.709 HLG. But, if you plan on using
a correction LUT, then you can skip this step
because a great thing about a Leeming LUT
is it will still correct your footage,
even if your project isn't colour managed.
Okay, so for the next question, which is more specific to SONY,
let's talk about some of those picture profiles
that are recommended online.
First off, the EOSHD Pro Color One.
Now, I don't want to sit here and bash someone else's work
because I know there's a lot of you
that like those Pro Color profiles,
but generally, I'd advise against
paying for picture profiles
because you're literally just buying numbers
and in my opinion, numbers that don't create
a very accurate or flexible image.
It's also why I don't recommend buying creative
or artistic LUTs. They just don't work reliably
unless you're shooting similar things
under similar conditions. And often, those LUTs
can be pretty easy to recreate with just
a little practice and knowledge with your color panel.
In fact, I think calling them LUTs
is a little bit of a misnomer.
They're really just glorified presets,
but at least artistic LUTs are non-destructive though.
You can always turn them off. But if you change
your picture profile with some wacky settings,
well, then your footage is gonna be captured like that
and you're drastically gonna reduce your ability to use
technical LUTs or even match to another shooter's camera.
But, let's take a look at what I mean
by establishing a baseline image.
So, this shot here is done with a Cine2
on the Sony a7 III using Cinema color
and all other settings left to their default
except for detail, which is set to -7.
Actually, let's take a minute here to answer that question
about neutral settings for picture profiles.
Some of you were concerned that if you reprogram
a picture profile that you used before,
that you would lose track of the neutral settings
or if you hit the reset button, that it would produce
a different result, but in either case,
these are the default neutral settings
that I was referring to. But I would set every profile
to -7 detail, even though that's not a default setting
because in-camera sharpening is terrible.
Always do it in post. Alright, so back to the shot.
This is the recommended profile for easiest shooting
and editing. The other Cines are good too,
but they capture levels outside of delivery range
because the highlights can go all the way up to 109%,
but Cine2 can't do that. It's capped out at 100%,
so it's the easiest to grade of the flat profiles.
It's also the friendliest
to the Sony's limited bit depth of 8-bit.
Each step we make toward an improved gamma with better
dynamic range reduces our flexibility in post because
of the bit depth limitations of Sony mirrorless cameras
and this is why the Cine gammas are great.
HLG is good, too, and that's as high
as I would go. I would avoid S-Log.
S-Log2 can be good in ideal conditions,
but S-Log3 is a non-starter in my opinion.
Now, you will get people telling you that
one Cine gamma will have better dynamic range
or perform better in low light than another one,
but in my experience, this doesn't read true.
Sony has all four Cines listed
as the same dynamic range on their website,
but there are different exposure requirements
in order to achieve that. So, it's possible that people
don't really know how to expose them, and then
they're complaining about the dynamic range differences.
But if you expose them all correctly
and then bring them to the same levels in post,
I bet that you will fail the Pepsi challenge
as to which is which. Now, that statement
is more pointed towards Cine 1 versus Cine 2
because Cine 3 and 4 do have more contrast,
but if you correct for that contrast in post as well,
they will all look almost identical.
And I'll show you how to match these Cine profiles
when we get to that question a little bit later on.
Now, if you know how to read a waveform
and are okay with adjusting your output levels in post,
then Cine 1 might be the best of the lot
because of that wider starting position,
which might allow you to hide more noise when you
lower the black level, and will have brighter highlights,
which can be appreciated on some screens without having
to deal with the extra contrast of Cine 3 and Cine 4,
but again, this difference is minor, as in less than 5%,
and if you don't want to mess with any of that,
Cine 2 is still a great option.
Now, when it comes to Cine, some people like to use
Pro Color here instead of Cinema color to make it
even more deliverable right out of camera.
But, I prefer to adjust the saturation and colours in post,
and find Pro to be a bit too much for my taste.
And it can sometimes cause these weird colour flares
that don't blend as nicely, which you can see
around the lights in this example here,
despite everything else being exactly the same.
Okay, so for grading this clip, we can either put on
the Leeming LUT for Cine 2 at this point,
or we can do a quick grade ourselves and we get a baseline
image that fairly represents what I and my space look like.
Now, I should probably mention that the grade that I put
on this clip, as well as the one that I use on the GH5,
has a little bit of extra purple in the shadows
and a little bit of cream colour in the highlights.
It doesn't change the mid-range colour accuracy too much,
but it's just something to be aware of moving forward.
But, here is before and after so you can get a sense of it.
And as for that grading tips question, while we're at it,
let's just go ahead and match all the other Cine profiles
as well; all with Cinema color with the rest of their settings
set to those neutral defaults, except for the detail
which is set to -7.
So, Cine 2 and Cine 1 are easy.
They grade pretty much the same.
As you can see, the settings are identical on the side
and the images look pretty much exactly the same as well.
Now, Cine 3 and Cine 4 is when you're gonna jump in
to that extra contrast that we were talking about.
But as you can see, I was able to match it pretty closely
to the Cine 2 and Cine 1, and to do that,
we just take the contrast down about -45
and take a couple points off of saturation.
We have it down to 98, and that's pretty much it.
Now, Cine 4 is a little bit harder.
If we jump over here, we can see how it's much more
contrast-y and there's a bit of a temperature change as well.
But we're able to get it to match pretty closely.
We dropped the contrast down to -45 again.
There was also a bit of a temperature change,
like I said, we had to warm it up a little bit
and take a little bit of the magenta out of it.
And then I bumped the highlights a little bit
because when you take so much contrast out of something,
often the skin gets a little bit flatter looking,
so I added a little bit to the highlights
and a little bit to the shadows and overall,
it doesn't look-- it's not as easy as Cine 3
because of how far they push Cine 4, but you can get it
pretty close. So, here's Cine 4.
Cine 3, Cine 2 and Cine 1.
The differences that I showed you on Cine 3 and Cine 4
were in addition to whatever changes you make
to make Cine 2 or Cine 1 look the way you want.
So, I actually have two different grades going on here.
The top one is what I did to grade Cine 2
and then the bottom one is just the differences
there of lowering the contrast. So, the top layer looks
exactly like the settings do here for Cine 1 and Cine 2.
Now, let's take a look at some HLG clips.
I used the Leeming LUT for these because I didn't
wanna to go through and monkey with all the curves,
but if you wanna do that, you're gonna wanna start
with pulling the green out and working your way
through from there. But if you're striving for accuracy,
without a ColorChecker, this is gonna be hard work.
It's fine if you want to do something artistic,
but if you're doing this for commercial clients,
it might not fly. And, this is where a good LUT
will save you time and make your work more consistent.
Now, the Leeming LUT was designed for the base
HLG gamma, so if you want to use HLG3, which is definitely
superior, you're gonna have to tweak it a bit.
When comparing my slider differences between HLG
and HLG3 using the Leeming LUT, I found that I had to pull
the saturation down quite a bit more for HLG3,
and I also didn't have to bring the highlights down as far.
But other than that, it wasn't that much different.
Now, HLG1 and 2 are sometimes recommended
because they have improved noise reduction
due to having a lower ceiling for max output
at 87% and 95% respectively,
so they're trading off dynamic range to reduce noise
by pushing down the signal and noise simultaneously.
But similarly to what I said about the Cines,
when you take the HLGs and expose them correctly
and then bring them to the same levels in post,
it becomes very difficult to detect the differences
unless you zoom in. I will acknowledge, however,
that even when corrected in post,
HLG1 does have less noisy blacks than HLG2 and 3.
It is minor though and might not be worth
the loss of dynamic range, so I would probably stick
with HLG3, unless I was shooting primarily shadows.
HLG1 and 2 also grade identically to HLG3,
so it's harmless to switch between them
as long as you factor in the lower max highlight range.
Now, if we compare these HLG shots to our Cine grades
from earlier, we have them all looking pretty similar.
Okay, so now let's jump back to those profiles
you asked about from EOSHD and Cody Blue
now that we have something to compare them to.
First up, we have Pro Color v4 and this one is just a mess
when it comes to matching our previous looks.
Now, I'm not going to provide you these settings because that
wouldn't be fair to the creator who's selling them,
but I can tell you that it relies heavily on
bumping the saturation a lot, and tweaking
each individual component of the colour depth section.
And, as I was saying earlier, this means we've destructively
altered our colour to no longer match other Sony cameras
and using LUTs isn't going to save us.
Now, this doesn't mean that the creator
intended to make bad settings or is colour blind,
but rather that these setting are tuned for the conditions
in which that creator shoots. And as I've already said,
this is a recurring problem with creative LUTs and profiles.
If you have different lighting, white balancing
or colours in your shot, these types of setting
will often do more harm than good.
There's a review for these profiles that I think
says this best. This customer first laid out
how bad of an experience they were having
with Pro Color v4 in most scenarios,
but then followed up by saying, "Last week, we went
to Slovenia for a small road trip, so I took my a7 III
and used EOSHD Pro Color V4 HDR for all footage.
In the end, I was very surprised how good the image looks
after a little bit of colour correction,
so my conclusion is this profile is great for travel videos
and for jobs where you don't have to be colour accurate."
And I think that's a reasonable expectation
to have when using settings like this,
but it's also the reason why I don't recommend them.
Now, they mentioned the HDR profile,
and I tested that one too, and it looks like this:
Now, this one's a little bit better in my opinion
than the previous version, but it's still suffers
from plastic skin and the same, inaccurate colours.
It's definitely not suited for this kind of indoor,
moody shooting environment. Now, let's try the Cine 4
settings from Cody Blue. This profile isn't too bad
at all but it does have some issues.
First off, the recommendation to set the knee to 80%
is going to crowd the highlight range
for people with really light skin, like me.
This will give the skin a slightly worse texture
and remove some of the subtle gradations.
This one also features a custom colour depth,
which as I've said numerous times, is a mistake
because it reduces your camera's compatibility
with LUTs and other cameras.
And changing the colour is easy to do in post,
and you can take your time with it and get it right
with more precise tools. And to prove this,
I'll show you how I matched the Cody Blue to our previous
Cine 4 vanilla settings from earlier so you can see
what's different about it and also how to fix it.
Overall though, despite my complaints of how we got there,
I do think this image looks pretty good.
If we turn on the effects here, we can see how I got it
to match the other ones because the reds are going
a little bit wild here. That was obviously a stylistic choice,
likes to boost the reds, but in order to get those to match,
I just went down to the HSL here and bumped up the reds
a little bit more purple-y and that brought them
closer to the correct colour of my shirt.
And then, in order to match the Cine 4 a little bit closer,
I had to take the contrast down by about 10,
lower the saturation by a notch
and I made the whole image a little bit more green,
and then collectively, it looks pretty close
to our previous Cine 4 now. If we take it off,
we go back to the Cody Blue look.
Cody Blue also has a HLG3 profile, but its in BT.2020,
so the similar instructions from earlier apply.
Other than that, it doesn't really change much
except for the black level and the knee.
This is definitely the wrong knee for HLG
and I'm not a big fan of raising the black level.
Most of the time, people raise the black level
to give it a pseudo-cinema filmic look,
but it's something that's better left to post
so you don't contaminate your blacks when you're recording.
The only time to touch your black level, in my opinion,
is if you're trying to deliver noise-free content
straight out of camera in a low-light environment.
Which brings us to our last asked about profile,
the low light profile from Josh Yeo.
Overall, though, the Cody Blue profiles are pretty good
and best of all, he doesn't charge for them.
He's just sharing the look that he likes.
So, Josh Yeo recommends this profile for low light shooting
using the Still gamma and Pro color
with a lowered black level and reduced saturation.
And this all makes sense. You're going to maximize
the contrast on what's important and push out the noise
and dirty shadows that aren't. The reduced saturation
is to fight off the intensity of Pro color
while keeping the shot deliverable right out of camera.
It's a logical configuration
that produces pretty clean results.
The only con is it's fairly limited in its use.
If you don't have high contrast details to work with
that you really want to separate from the background,
this profile won't really give you much to work with
because it has significantly reduced dynamic range,
but it is good at what Josh Yeo intended it for.
But again, you can accomplish this in post
by pushing down the blacks and upping the contrast
on an unmodified Cine profile.
Here's that Cine 2 clip with the contrast upped to 60
and the blacks set to -10. And if we zoom in on the shadow,
I would suggest that it's actually cleaner
in terms of noise than the low light profile.
And I think that's where most people get confused
with these low light profiles that are circling around.
Reducing dynamic range and hammering the blacks
into the ground can be accomplished on any profile
in post, and it's naive to think one set of settings
will somehow unlock this magic sauce that doesn't have to
adhere to the science of signal to noise ratio.
But if your goal is to find a profile that will squash
some noise when delivering right out of the camera,
then Josh Yeo's settings will work for you,
and it looks pretty good too.
Anyway, I think that's it for all the questions.
As I said in the previous video, I know that it's tempting
to try and find some magic combinations of settings
that's just gonna make all your shots look great,
but that's just not how it works.
Every time you change environments
or subjects, you're gonna have to re-evaluate
how you want to tackle the look of your project.
Tricks and gimmicks are not the answer
and that includes magic picture profiles.
It's always gonna come down to practice and patience.
But that's gonna be it for me. I hope you found this video
helpful or at least entertaining, and if you did,
make sure to leave it the old thumbs up
and consider subscribing if you haven't already,
but if you did not find this video helpful or entertaining,
feel free to hit the dislike button twice.
Alright... I'm done.