Download & Grade Our Sony a6300 Footage – 4 Free LUTs by James Miller

Update: Head to our latest Sony a6300 reviews: lowlight test done by Nino and a comprehensive lab test done by Sebastian.

Grading is tricky. In fact, it is an artform in itself. In my original a6300 article, I graded the footage to my liking and although I supplied a link to an ungraded version (which was downloaded hundreds of times), I kept hearing concerns from some of our followers about the low contrast grade I did. This morning, James Miller, a friend and colleague of mine whose Deluts I used for grading my original piece stepped in. He sent me 4 LUTS which were created specifically for that project and this camera.

volleyball_graded

Please feel free to download those LUTs from here and grade the footage to your liking. The above video was re-graded very quickly using one of those very LUTs.

Once again, thank you to everybody who watched and commented on the original film link.

 

Sony a6300

Camera picture profile used in this video: S-Log 2. Shot mostly on 800 native ISO, Edited on Adobe Premiere CC latest edition. Here you can find additional LUTs by James Miller (DELUTS)

Music by musicbed. Title used : Your Favorite Song by Katrina Stone

A huge thank you to Katharina Almer and Cornelia Rimser for allowing me to document a day in their professional life. Please support them in finding a sponsor for their sportive activity!

 

Watch it on Vimeo

Leave a Comment

Login to comment

You are not subscribed to this post. Follow new comments

Joachim Richter Reply
Joachim Richter March 4, 2016

For me the film is not good looking, too unnatural. In most cases LUTs make the look feel unreal, what I do not like. I guess that an 8 bit signal does not have enough information for using a LUT in a sensitive manner.

Reply
Johnnie Behiri March 4, 2016

Fair enough!

Joachim Richter Reply
Joachim Richter March 4, 2016

Of course my intention is not to criticise creative decisions, there is nothing to criticise. I just try to understand which results are achievable by shooting slog with a LUT. That’s why I find your tests and the beginning discussion very helpful. Thanks!

Reply
Jarl Kristiansen March 4, 2016

Try shooting people in a white reflective light dome with any other camera, see how natural it looks.

Nick Lam Reply
Nick Lam March 4, 2016

I don’t understand how someone can be “concerned” about a creative decision?

There is no objective way to make a film!

Reply
Marcos Avlonitis March 4, 2016

Another excellent film Johnnie – I enjoyed it thoroughly and thought it used an interesting variety of shots and techniques to make the piece stand out visually and engage the viewer as well as test the camera.

And also, many thanks to James Miller for uploading free LUTs – I use the Deluts regularly so it’s great to see him working on a set for the new A6300.

Reply
Johnnie Behiri March 5, 2016

Guys, thank you again for taking the time to watch the video and participate in the conversation.

My colleagues are busy finishing a short lowlight high ISO test video and also a proper lab test.

The results will be published here very soon.

Thanks again!

Johnnie

Reply
Steven Galvano March 5, 2016

I’m looking for a high quality compact wide zoom to go with my a6300. What’s the best choice out there?
I like the focal length and size of the zeiss 16-70, but I’ve always heard mixed comments on it. I’ve never used it.

Is there another choice that can better match the performance of my Leica R primes?

Reply
Steven Galvano March 5, 2016

Maybe the Zeiss 16-35? Is it a better choice than the 16-70 if image quality in the widest zoom ranges are my biggest priority?

Nick Lam Reply
Nick Lam March 6, 2016

Yes I would go with the FE 16-35 F4 for one reason: It has a closer focusing distance. I’ve tried it and I can confirm that the closest focusing distance is similar to a prime (although not as close but good enough for a zoom).

The 16-70’s closest focusing distance is quite horrendous on paper (I’ve not done any real world tests on it).

Reply
Johnnie Behiri March 6, 2016

Hi Steven.

The 16-35mm is a great lens to work with. My main usage for it are on my CAME TV single gimbal and when I want to create nice powerful wide shots.

Thanks.

Johnnie

Reply
Steven Galvano March 7, 2016

Would you call it a better lens than the 12-35 for the GH4?
That lens was a bit of a let down for me.

Reply
Johnnie Behiri March 7, 2016

Sorry Steven, no experience with the Panasonic 12-35mm for the GH4.

Thanks.

Johnnie

 Robert Anderiesen Reply
Robert Anderiesen March 7, 2016

thanks for this test Johnnie, I’ve tried to grade the original files but the skintones just remain awful, is it the same on the a7sii?

Reply
Johnnie Behiri March 8, 2016

Hi Robert.

Sorry to hear you have no success in grading the video. On the a7SII it is certainly not the same as far as I’m concern.

I’m sure more footage from the a6300 will emerge soon and hopefully you can download and successfully grade it.

Thanks!

Johnnie

 Robert Anderiesen Reply
Robert Anderiesen March 8, 2016

Was the lighting there coming mainly from something looking like fluorescent tubes? That certainly wouldn’t help with representing color accurately.

Reply
Johnnie Behiri March 9, 2016

Hi Robert,

Yes indeed, you are tight!.

There was not much control on those fluorescent tubes. The only time I could contribute with lighting was during the interview session.

Thanks.

Johnnie

 Larry Wiezycki Reply
Larry Wiezycki March 8, 2016

It just seems like a white dome should give wonderful, soft skin tones but wow. It’s shot and edited nice, love the moves and shot composition/choice… just can’t believe these girls have horrible looking skin like that!

Reply
Johnnie Behiri March 8, 2016

Hi Larry.

The girls skin is fine. I prefer to to take the responsibility for that awkward look on myself.

Thanks!

Johnnie

Reply
Sparky McLenscap March 9, 2016

“horrible looking skin”

Sony

Joachim Richter Reply
Joachim Richter March 9, 2016

If anything is not looking as we like it, has a technical and an imaginery aspect. Johnnie’s film is a good example for how to consider both aspects. That’s why I like to go a little deeper in understanding what is going on here.

As a photographer who spent most of his lifetime exposing film I am used to make every creative decision before pressing the button. Nowadays we have the same situation when writing compressed files. If you are looking for quality, do it in advance and not in post.

There is a huge difference between log and raw files as well as 8 bit and 14 bit tonal range. In Johnnies image we see a low contrast situation (the lamps on the roof of the hall are blown out anyway) exposed with an 8 bit slog2 file. In this situation the soft light is even compressed into the 8 bit codec and spread afterwards in post. By this process there is a lack of tonal information that makes it look so poor. The color of the skin tone itself is well under control. Also the whole image is precisely white balanced. It is just the lack of tonal information that comes into regard for me.

What I learned from this example is, that using an 8 bit log file in a low contrast situation is a difficult mannor for getting a natural looking image. This would be the case with any camera not just Sony.

If I would have taken such a picture with my Nikon using 14 bit raw, it would be much easier to grade. Here wonders are possible like in 18th century painting where artists just adjusted tonal decisions to their aesthetic preferences. In a photographic image this is much more difficult or even nowadays impossible.

Thank you Johnnie for making this film and giving the opportunity to discuss this interesting subject!

Reply
Johnnie Behiri March 9, 2016

Hi Joachim.

Thank you for a clear informative observation. Appreciated!

Johnnie

Reply
Steven Galvano March 9, 2016

Hi Johnnie-
Did you find the roller shutter to be a huge problem in the real world?
There’s that one medium speed 180 degree pan at about :30 — things looked fine on that.
We do some sudden hand held moves, but nothing too much faster than that pan.

Reply
Johnnie Behiri March 9, 2016

Hi Steven.

Dealing with DSLRs that shoot video since the happy day of the Nikon D90, I can say with confidence that we’ve learned how to deal with rolling shutter.

If you are an experienced user or a person who agrees that most of the time this ugly effect will disturb us more then the viewers, then nothing will stop you for using this camera with confidence.

It’s there, it’s ugly, it’s usable.

Thanks!

Johnnie