Thanks. That helps explain a lot.
So, right now I've got the V-log plugin for Vegas but no lut tables. I saw there were a few free luts but were designed mainly to look like film. Not sure I want that but I'll look around for others.
I believe that the "VariCam 35 3DLUT V-Log to V-709" which you can download from the Panasonic site can be used to get ordinary video-looks (BT.709 for HDTV standards). I tested it and it seemed to work.
Shooting in LOG, if properly shot, is said to yield wider dynamic range videos so it might not necessarily be "film-look". However, in order to get the most out of such LOG files, people say that we need at least 10 bit 422 color sampling space hence, in GH4 terms, we realistically need an external recorder such as Atomos Shogun/Ninja Assassin. It's not an option for me (at least for now).
I downloaded the panasonic 709 LUT. I'm getting the gist of this a bit more but there are several files included in the lut.
They include a txt, cube, and vlt file.
The vlt file when applied gives horrible crazy color results. The cube and the txt file work to punch up the color but when applied but the subtle dark areas where I could see detail before the lut was applied have disappeared and I thought that was the point of the lut, to be able to maintain those subtle nuances.
1 Which of those files should I apply, the txt, cube, or vlt?
2 After it has been applied, would it be common to go in with other plugins and adjust more from there?
3 It seems I can get as much from simply applying my curves, color correction, etc without using the LUT. Am I right or wrong in thinking that?
Thanks for your help. Still trying to get a handle on this.
PS. I'm using the new Panasonic DVX200 camera
.TXT : Compatible with Quantel Pablo
.Cube : Compatible with Davinci Resolve
.VLT : Compatible with VariCam 35,AG-DVX200,AG-GH4U
By the way, you could open .cube and .vlt in Windows Notepad where you could see, I believe, a combination of RGB values.
2. LUT is just a conversion table as to how a flat-looking LOG-shot file should look like in an intended viewing environment (e.g. REC 709). After applying a LUT, you are naturally expected to further work in post to take advantage of a wider dynamic range LOG files, which is the whole point.
3. Ultimately I think you are free to work in post without a LUT. I am sorry but my experience with LOG is limited. There appear to be some good LOG samples on YouTube using DVX200 and might I suggest that you view (or search Google) to decide whether or not you should continue to work in LOG?
Thanks for all your help with this. I'm still having difficulty figuring this out. I downloaded the LUT tables you suggested (vlog to 709 for DVX200) and here are my results after applying all of them.
As you can see, the detail in the trees on the original clip have all been lost after applying the lut.
And that third .vlt lut really makes the colors all crazy.
I must be getting something terribly wrong here but I don't know what it is.
Thanks so much.
Since I know nothing about DVX200 as to how it should be set up to achieve the best results out of log files, may I suggest that you refer to this 279 pages guidebook (free from Panasonic) specifically written for DVX200? It seems to have a fair amount of helpful info on v-log and LUTs.