X5S LUTs

[TomyVertigo]

Hello,

does anybody have some LUTs for Zenmuse X5S to share?

Thank you
Tomy

 

[Feet Up]

Hi Tomy,

What source configurations are you looking for LUT's for? RAW, Prores/D-Log, etc. What software are you using for editing?

 

[TomyVertigo]

Hi,

I have Inspire2 with X5S and I am looking for the best result from my equipment. I do not have RAW licences yet, so was thinking to use D-LOG for recording and edit video in Premiere CC.

 

[Barry Goyette]

If you're using D-Log with ProRes, we've been getting pretty good results with the stock Arri LogC Rec709 LUT. (I work in FCPX, but Scott Randall has also confirmed it works well in Lumetri). For a little flatter result, The Canon C300mark II Clog to WideDR-Rec709 looks good as well. I'll be if you mess around with almost any stock log LUT, you won't be too far off, as they are generally pretty similar. If you are thinking about shooting h264,h265 in D-log -- I'd love to convince you to forget it. Those codecs reveal pretty strong banding, noise and macro blocking with LUTs applied.

 

[TomyVertigo]

I do not have ProRes or CinemaDNG licences yet. So, what is best alternative?

 

[Barry Goyette]

I think you just need to experiment with the various gammas that DJI supplies for h264/265 and see which you like. Unfortunately they seem to change the names of them with each go4 update, but different folks have different likes. I find the D-cinelike gives me a typical "WideDR" look and is the closest to what a wideDR LUT would do. Some others have mentioned liking "standard" (which isn't an option in my version of Go4 and others "none". TrueColor looks to me to be the same as D-cinelike without the lifted midtones (probably the closest to the Arri Alexa log-c Rec709 LUT.)

Also...regarding using D-Log with H264/65 -- I've tested and wouldn't generally use it in 4k as the codec isn't really up to the task...but it might be worth looking at the HD/2k versions, if thats enough Res. for you. 60mbps in HD is in theory more robust than 100mbs in 4k. Although I'm not sure whether you'd see any improvement or not.

Also -- I'd recommend turning the sharpening down as far as it goes with H264/65. Even then there are significant sharpening artifacts and aliasing compared to ProRes, but the lower the level of those artifacts at capture, the better.

 

[Raymondo]

Thanks for the input. The Arri LogC Rec709 suggestion? You say the stock Arri LogC Rec709 is a good starting point.That is not in my list of LUTs in Premiere CC 2018. Did you get it from somewhere else.

 

[Stuart Covey]

Thanks for the input. The Arri LogC Rec709 suggestion? You say the stock Arri LogC Rec709 is a good starting point.That is not in my list of LUTs in Premiere CC 2018. Did you get it from somewhere else.

He's coming from Final Cut, but it's very similar to the AMIRA_Default_LogC2Rec709 in Premiere. Like they mentioned, it's a little flat so it'll need some touch up, but it get's you pretty close.

 

[slim.slamma]

If you're using D-Log with ProRes, we've been getting pretty good results with the stock Arri LogC Rec709 LUT. (I work in FCPX, but Scott Randall has also confirmed it works well in Lumetri). For a little flatter result, The Canon C300mark II Clog to WideDR-Rec709 looks good as well. I'll be if you mess around with almost any stock log LUT, you won't be too far off, as they are generally pretty similar. If you are thinking about shooting h264,h265 in D-log -- I'd love to convince you to forget it. Those codecs reveal pretty strong banding, noise and macro blocking with LUTs applied.

Not bad for free!