Personal View site logo
GH4 Firmware 2.3, V-log for $99, Epic Panasonic marketing fail
  • 1451 Replies sorted by
  • Here is something I am doing out of the kindness of my heart.

    Osiris LUT's, the world's best base grades... Take this setting into Davinci Resolve 12, apply this LUT (See link...) and enjoy instant "higher-dynamic range" LOG footage that rivals the Arri image (almost!)

    There is only one file here, not all of them, so I am not robbing the parent company of their sales, but I just happen to be sharing the best one of the lot! Buy all of them if you like this one! There is a lot of variation...

    Yes, it is a .cube file, NOT a virus filled .exe file... I am putting my word and reputation on the line here that it is a safe file... You have to know how to use it though!

    Post your graded shots here with the results of the epic Panasonic fail in the implementation of the V-Log settings! Enjoy,

  • I am removing that file. If you want it contact me...

    Happy V-Log-ing!

    Brennan Kirkpatrick

  • I tried that LUT. It looks horrible compared with the panasonic LUT.

  • What'd you expect from someone who thinks Osiris is anything but crap?

  • Ha, like I said, you can use it as a base grade...

    Just to be clear, it is not a replacement for the Panasonic LUT, as it is not attempting to emulate the REC709 colour space.

    It adds some interesting tones to the look, and is not for everyone's taste, but I have used it for more than one of my client productions, and they liked it, so who am I to judge...

    If you don't like it, that is OK! At least you now know that Osiris LUTs are not for you! I just saved you $100 depending on where you live...

  • Osris LUTS are baked in looks and for what they are they are fine. They are not intended to convert log space to rec 709. You use them after your base corrections for a look than fine tune.

  • If they are not intended to convert log to rec709, why do they supply log versions as well as rec709 versions of the LUT?

    I have tried a lot of LUT packages and only use an occasional film emulation LUT at about 30% strength to slightly modify the colours. Most look-style LUTs seem to create more problems than I would like to deal with and I find using DaVinci Resolve in a creative way to build my own looks and power grades is a much easier process and avoids the clipping issues that LUTS can create.

    If you like using LUTS, great. Just not for me. I have been grading for too many years to be happy with most 'instant solutions'.

  • Well let me be the first to admit you may know more than me but here is my outlook on it as of now using Resolve. I inherently see a problem with using Osiris log LUTS with native log files. Whose version of log would you use to define log? LOG is not a standard?? So if using log files you need to do some corrections with that file first IMO. In other words bringing that log file into the real world. Since I'm new to it I use a workflow that does some of that for me. I've been using the Balazer LUTS to convert my CineD file to LOG and the 709 LUT to bring it into the real world so to speak. I can than tweak the log file before the 709 LUT while actually viewing the file after the 709 conversion. When I am happy with the base looks I than apply a Look LUT (Osiris, film emulation etc) to the timeline and reduce transparency till it pleases me. I can also do additionally tweaking if I don't like a particular clips output.

    So in summary At clip import immediately apply the Balazer LOG conversion to clip in Media Panel.

    Inside color panel create a clip corrections node and than the Balazer REC 709 LUT in a node tweak corrections node as needed.

    Finally inside color panel create a timeline node apply Osiris or other Look LUT of choice set transparency to adjust strength of LUT.

    Go back and tweak clips if needed.

    Obviously there is more than one way to do this but this works for me most of the time and is quick. That being said I'm new to it so my workflow will evolve.

  • Well, I find LUTs helpful in speeding up my workflow, though they are not applicable in every situation... In this clip they helped me to find a cinematic colour mixture (minus skin tones on hand...) in a very short time schedule. This was a totally unplanned shot, using the GH4 at 96fps...

    As you can see, it is a horrible example, wiggles and all, but handheld with no planning using the Speedbooster XL and the Sigma 18-35 F1.1, (yes, you read that right, F/1.1 on the GH4 with the SB XL... :P ) it turned out OK... At least for the testing...

    Is there anything I should do to bring back the skin tones but still keep the interesting colours in the rest of the shot?

  • Again not an expert by any means but a well executed Look LUT tries to stay away from modifying skin tones to much. Skin tones are one of those things we are keenly aware of if they are to far off the norm. My experience with the Osiris LUTS is there pretty good that way.

  • Found someone on Vimeo showing Osiris LUTS he used log and explains his workflow at top of comments.

  • @BrennaK you just put me off sausages!

  • @belfryman Hahaha! Frozen raw sausage on an open campfire, can't be beat! LOL...

    More from that same trip:

    Yes, I was using the free V-Log setting... LOL...

    I don't mind the colouring, considering I had a $0 budget, it was run-and-gun, and I had no time for planning! And I only had 2 hours to put it all together and I am not used to out-in-the-wild filming. But it was fun!

    But I sure could use some constructive feedback... Anyone want to donate their 2 cents?


  • @BrennanK, to me that first campfire sample had excellent image quality/grading, that gave it a really nice look. For some reason the second sample with the jeep in it had a strange look to it that made it appear to be interlaced footage or something, almost as if it was a video recording of an old tube type TV screen... Was that an effect you were going for?

    To everyone, am I in the norm for thinking that at least half of that BMPCC test footage with the Osiris LUT on it looks awful? Some of it looked OK to me if the shooter and/or editor were going for a stylized look, but a lot of it just looked bad. Or is it just me? Lol

  • @Tjabo ... Aha, the dilemma of doing work for international clients, you sometimes get referrals. I shot those test clips, (test clips, not for anything but testing) to prove to them I could pull off their requests for creative colour, advanced slow motion, and cinema-style commercial production.

    Now, I really mucked it up when I recorded in 23.976 fps, did all my work before I realized I needed to send it over to New Zealand, which is a PAL country, so needed to be in 25 fps... The effect you see in the clip is the hiccup of converting between the two frame rates without proper planning... At least that is the only thing that I can think of making it jumpy like that... Not an intentional effect.

    Does that make sense? Is there a good way to convert 23.976 to 25 fps?


  • @Tjabo I think some just don't understand these LUTS. They are exactly style LUTS to give you a certain look not simply log conversions. He used every LUT in the Osiris package and I am not a fan of them all. When I use them I usually turn the transparency down so there effect is more subtle. That being said I don't think there is anything wrong with the footage in the context of what he was demonstrating. In the end it's all personal taste.

  • @Scot

    I only used one LUT, but left it at OEM settings... I used the one that I posted here. I should have turned down the transparency to make it less saturated... What is the best way to do that?


  • @ BrennanK I have been embracing Resolve to work with LUTS so it is the only way I know. Once you create a node for your Lut than go to key and using key output gain reduce it. I seem to end up around .50 when it looks good to me. Of course that just changes the strength of the LUT. You can change saturation of your clips in your correction node if you made one previous to the LUT node.

  • @BrennanK, thanks for the answer, that makes sense about the NTSC to PAL conversion! Well, I mean I appreciate the answer and I assume it accounts for that interlaced look on the second clip that I see. Not having ever tried doing that I have no idea whether that could be avoided by using the "interpret footage as" function or not... I really did like the look of the first clip that was just campfire, and I think you said that was 96fps? Looked very good, especially when slowed.

    I think where Scot was talking about reducing the transparency of a LUT effect he was responding to my comments/questions about the OSIRIS LUTs and who actually likes them (Lol). I don't think that was about your footage.

    @Scot, thank you for your answer regarding the use of LUTs! So far I haven't found one ever that I ended up using... Seems like they all require tweaking, and I'm better off just starting with my own adjustments. I guess if I was looking for a certain stylized look and one of them did exactly that, it would be cool. Maybe I need to keep them in mind for that.

    By the way, LUT Buddy allows you to use LUTs with Premiere Pro, right?

  • I think in lowering the black level from 100 to 0 on the 8bit 0-255 scale (and similarly in 10bit, although the range goes 0-1024) the profile now crushes the blacks more than other established LOG profiles such as Canon LOG and S-LOG. My advice to Leica is to get the LOG profile as close to Canon LOG as possible. The black level shouldn’t be at 100 on the 8bit luma range but neither should they crush to absolute zero.

    Andrew technical genius shines again.

  • @Tjabo You might want to check out the M31 LUT they actually sell it separately. I'm not sure how I feel about it. That being said it is a insanely popular look. Since becoming sensitive to it's existence I now see that orange and teal look every where in TV and film.

  • I can upload all of the Osiris LUTs if you want to see them... But you have to promise to go buy them if you like them!!! Hahaha!

  • Here's another test I made with V-Log at 8bits, this time with anamorphic cinelux lenses

  • @iban_corominas looks great! I'm still baffled at how unpopular V-Log became.