Are Utility LUTs obsolete?

Since I started shooting footage in HLG with my Panasonic GH5, I have tried to understand the correct workflow when Colour Correcting the HLG footage. I even went as far as purchasing a Leeming LUT pack for my camera and just watched endless YouTube tutorials from presenters of varying skills and abilities.

A month ago I finally caved in and bought a Panasonic VLog profile and instantly loved how I could slap on a Panasonic 709 lut and get great looking footage.

I then watched a Tutorial which suggested selecting the correct Input Gamma of Panasonic V-Log. This process instantly converted my flat profile to an image far superior to a Panasonic or Lemming Lut.

Is this an "inside secret" or has DaVinci Resolve done away with the need for a Utility LUT with versions 16 and 17?

Since I started shooting footage in HLG with my Panasonic GH5, I have tried to understand the correct workflow when Colour Correcting the HLG footage. I even went as far as purchasing a Leeming LUT pack for my camera and just watched endless YouTube tutorials from presenters of varying skills and abilities.

A month ago I finally caved in and bought a Panasonic VLog profile and instantly loved how I could slap on a Panasonic 709 lut and get great looking footage.

I then watched a Tutorial which suggested selecting the correct Input Gamma of Panasonic V-Log. This process instantly converted my flat profile to an image far superior to a Panasonic or Lemming Lut.

Is this an "inside secret" or has DaVinci Resolve done away with the need for a Utility LUT with versions 16 and 17?

In two words: Yes and yes.
The manual page 221 has more info (as well as the layout of where a LUT woud fit at page 2842, a description of what a LUT actually is at page 2923)

No inside secrets, this is color transforms 101. You remove the encoding and apply forward transform to something else. For doing it properly the parameters of either have to be known, so usually it comes down to whether some wonky curve/gamut definition is added to Resolve or not

HLG is far superior to V-Log, especially V-Log L. I've got a write up in progress on this very point.

I don't know why people prefer and promote LUTs over proper technical transforms, especially with all the functionality Resolve has to offer. As an engineer, I always find it mind boggling. But as with all things in life, what is popular will always come out on top, even if it may be inferior.

HLG is far superior to V-Log, especially V-Log L. I've got a write up in progress on this very point.

I spent seven months trying to learn and work with HLG, and I thought I was doing well.

That was till I finally paid the Panasonic Tax and bought vLog. In the space of two short tests I discovered that the results from vLog were visually superior to my seven months of trying to work with HLG.

Bottom line HLG is a pain in the arse to try and find the correct settings to enter into DaVinci Resolve. And to make matters worse, there is very little information to find on YouTube after you've discounted all the incorrect so called experts reporting to know how to expose and then grade HLG.

I disagree with you saying that HLG is superior to vLog simply because I've seen the results from using both types of Log. Hybrid Log Gamma, is what it says on the tin, a hybrid log primarily designed for live broadcast and all the limitations because of this fact.

HLG is far superior to V-Log, especially V-Log L. I've got a write up in progress on this very point.

I don't know why people prefer and promote LUTs over proper technical transforms, especially with all the functionality Resolve has to offer. As an engineer, I always find it mind boggling. But as with all things in life, what is popular will always come out on top, even if it may be inferior.

Because people are fixated into WYSIWYG logic and don’t want to understand that what you have can be transformed to whatever you want (within technical limitations). Internet is overflowed with manually grading log data as rec709 as if it were the only sensible thing to do, gee, just turn de knobz!

HLG is far superior to V-Log, especially V-Log L. I've got a write up in progress on this very point.

I spent seven months trying to learn and work with HLG, and I thought I was doing well.

That was till I finally paid the Panasonic Tax and bought vLog. In the space of two short tests I discovered that the results from vLog were visually superior to my seven months of trying to work with HLG.

Bottom line HLG is a pain in the arse to try and find the correct settings to enter into DaVinci Resolve. And to make matters worse, there is very little information to find on YouTube after you've discounted all the incorrect so called experts reporting to know how to expose and then grade HLG.

I disagree with you saying that HLG is superior to vLog simply because I've seen the results from using both types of Log. Hybrid Log Gamma, is what it says on the tin, a hybrid log primarily designed for live broadcast and all the limitations because of this fact.

I don't know how people work with V-Log L with anything but a LUT as there are no profiles in RCM or ACES to do an accurate transform to a working or output space. Different story with 'real' V-LOG in the latest Pany cameras which is IME superior to HLG as it doesn't have NR which means the shadows have colour information in them. Broadly speaking LUTS are obsolete for basic technical transforms of camera profiles to working spaces now we have RCM and ACES but I still like them for film emulations and 'looks' as a 'polishing' tool.

I don't know how people work with V-Log L with anything but a LUT as there are no profiles in RCM or ACES to do an accurate transform to a working or output space.

From Panasonic:

Both V-Log and V-Log L have the same characteristic curve, and LUT (Look Up Table) can be utilized.

https://shop.panasonic.com/cameras-and- ... -VLOG.html

In any event, in Resolve you're getting either the V-Log lut for display-managed grading or the V-log transform when you use RCM for scene-referred. Neither is modified for V-log L. The only apparent difference between the two standards is the luminance limit of V-log L, with its advertised 12-stop DR, which is lower than the advertised DR of V-Log capable cameras in the Panny line.

That aside, shooting HLG would seem to be a strange choice, if any grading is intended.

what is popular will always come out on top, even if it may be inferior.

SACD vs MP3.

Quality lost.

I don't know how people work with V-Log L with anything but a LUT as there are no profiles in RCM or ACES to do an accurate transform to a working or output space.

I make no claims about accuracy, but the V-Log IDT works quite well for less than broadcast/cinema productions.

To me, LOG & HLG is like apples & oranges. Quite different purposes.

I don't know how people work with V-Log L with anything but a LUT as there are no profiles in RCM or ACES to do an accurate transform to a working or output space.

From Panasonic:

Both V-Log and V-Log L have the same characteristic curve, and LUT (Look Up Table) can be utilized.

https://shop.panasonic.com/cameras-and- ... -VLOG.html

In any event, in Resolve you're getting either the V-Log lut for display-managed grading or the V-log transform when you use RCM for scene-referred. Neither is modified for V-log L. The only apparent difference between the two standards is the luminance limit of V-log L, with its advertised 12-stop DR, which is lower than the advertised DR of V-Log capable cameras in the Panny line.

That aside, shooting HLG would seem to be a strange choice, if any grading is intended.

It’s mainly the colour gamut that is ‘unknown’ even if V-Log can be used as an approximate colour transform substitute. HLG uses a defined and known gamut and response curve so even though it may be designed for display it captures all the data on the sensor and you can accurately do a transform to your working and output space so it’s not a strange choice for capture use at all. On the GH5 all the other profiles are specific to the camera so have no accurate transform ability to a standard or capture a limited tonal and colour ( REC709) or like V-Log L have an unknown gamut.

I don't know how people work with V-Log L with anything but a LUT as there are no profiles in RCM or ACES to do an accurate transform to a working or output space.

I make no claims about accuracy, but the V-Log IDT works quite well for less than broadcast/cinema productions.

Yes it works ‘quite well’ but it’s not as accurate as HLG on the GH5. HLG still requires a lot of work but at least you are starting from an accurate IDT.

It’s mainly the colour gamut that is ‘unknown’ even if V-Log can be used as an approximate colour transform substitute.

Your source for this is what? I ask, because Panasonic doesn't seem to think it's "unknown". That's why they direct GH5 shooters to use the v-log LUT.

HLG uses a defined and known gamut and response curve so even though it may be designed for display it captures all the data on the sensor and you can accurately do a transform to your working and output space so it’s not a strange choice for capture use at all. On the GH5 all the other profiles are specific to the camera so have no accurate transform ability to a standard or capture a limited tonal and colour ( REC709) or like V-Log L have an unknown gamut.

Again, "defined" by whom and where -- any more than rec. 709 normalization is the same for every camera? What transforms are designed for Panny's particular implementation of HLG? And what are the limits of grading a display format, and this particular display format, as compared to V-log L? It would behoove shooters to find out, before going the HLG route, even forgetting that it's prohibitively expensive to monitor accurately at anything other than the SDR display version of HLG. In other words, HLG without HLG display.

The ‘unknown’ nature of the gamut of V-Log L has been well known for a long time. I don’t have links to hand but you can find them with a search on LGG and DVXuser forums. Panasonic recommends their LUT but it’s not the same as it being accurate and anyway why didn’t they implement the real V-Log in the GH5?
HLG, REC709 and V-LOG are all standard and universal profiles defined by mathematical models and thus it’s possible to work with them in a proper colour controlled editing environment. Cine D, natural, portrait and V-Log ‘L’ are all looks specific to each camera where there is no way of doing an accurate transform to an editing or output space apart from eyeballing it.
You don’t need an HLG capable monitor to capture in an HLG profile any more than you need a V-LOG or Arri Alexa capable monitor (if one were to even exist) to shoot in these camera profiles. (I’m sorry to repeat) - HLG on the GH5 is the only method of capturing all of the sensor is capable of in a defined reference space to enable an accurate conversion to a working and output space. All other profiles clip data or have unknown profiles.

This idea that you get precise mathematical models shooting rec. 709 or HLG seems to me a bit over-optimistic. Just compare the rec. 709 or HLG output or two consumer-level cameras. Even assuming you're right about the v-log gamut, you'll still be working with approximations which ever route you choose. The formulas are rigid but the footage isn't. Color grading may be one way of dealing with these discrepancies.

As for what can and can't be obtained from v-log source material on the GH5 versus a display format like HLG, or the joys of monitoring HLG footage on monitors which aren't capable of HLG, opinions will differ. A continuing frustration of these debates is that they typically take place between persons who aren't professionals graders (I think that's you and me) but who project all the self-assurance of the finest. This can become tiresome even for the participants. At some point, the Kabuki really needs to shut down. There's so much inconsequential footage out there, it won't matter what GH5 shooters do, or the differences are inconsequential in the real world.

If a camera profile is designated REC709, HLG, V-Log or even Black Magic film for that matter or any camera profile that has an IDT in RCM or ACES in resolve you are in the right ‘ball park’ as far as starting point is for a route through the grade and that’s all a colour managed workflow (Input, working and output profiles ) can do - it’s not ‘the grade’. I’d rather have a reasonably good starting point than a random camera specific profile like ‘natural’ ( or v-log l ) with no IDT
I don’t understand why you think HLG is somehow unsuitable as it’s a ‘display’ profile. REC709 is also a display profile but is also a capture profile. I also don’t get why you are still insisting you need an HLG capable monitor for material captured in an HLG camera profile when you are delivering to REC709. You only need an HLG capable monitor if you are delivering HLG. I’m not a pro grader in the cine world but in stills I’ve been working with colour managed workflows since they were introduced 20+ years ago doing prepress and commercial retouching so I know my way around the subject and video/cine has been late to get on board to the colour management party and if you are a Premier Pro user it’s not even a topic....
The GH5 is (still is) a good camera in many ways but it’s colour capability/ fidelity is limited and unpredictable. Even 2 identical GH5’s side by side can look different. I speculate the main reason it doesn’t have proper V-LOG is that the sensor itself can’t capture it’s full gamut. V-LOG on my S1 and S5 is in another league and not far off my P6K and as with the BM you can hit a clean, natural and accurate grade with minimal work which is not something you can say when dealing with GH5 footage. Lots of GH5 footage out there looks ‘filmic’ or ‘graded’ simply because it’s a hell of a lot easier to give it a ‘look’ than it is to make it look clean and natural.