Page 1 of 10 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 103

Hybrid View

  1. Collapse Details
    Logarist Color Correction for DaVinci Resolve, Vegas Pro, Final Cut Pro X
    #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    251
    Default
    Logarist now supports Adobe Premiere Pro and Premiere Elements with a free plugin.

    Logarist brings color science to the art of color correction, enabling fast and accurate adjustment right inside your video editing application, without the need to shoot raw. Logarist reduces color correction to its fundamentals, with controls that work much like the controls built into a camera or a raw image processor like Lightroom. Logarist uses look-up tables (LUTs) to transform your camera's video into a color space optimized for exposure compensation, white balance correction, and contrast adjustment, and then renders it for viewing on a standard display. Logarist makes basic color correction easy and accurate, and enables advanced corrections that are otherwise difficult or impossible. Logarist is free, and you can download it from logarist.com.

    Supported camera color spaces:
    • BT.709 (standard HD video)
    • Arri Alexa Log C
    • Canon EOS Neutral
    • Canon Log 1–3
    • Canon Wide DR gamma
    • Fujifilm F-Log
    • GoPro Protune
    • JVC J-Log1
    • Panasonic GH2 Standard
    • Panasonic GH4 Cinelike D
    • Panasonic GH4 V-Log L
    • Panasonic GH5 Cinelike D
    • Panasonic VariCam V-Log
    • Sony Cine1–2
    • Sony HyperGamma 2, 4, 7, and 8
    • Sony S-Log1–3



    Last edited by balazer; 08-26-2017 at 03:19 PM.


    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    544
    Default
    Thank you.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    1,366
    Default
    I have to admit that I don't quite understand how a 3D LUT can change the working color space of an application? For example, I think FCPX processes everything internally as YUV with 16 bit precision, right?


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    251
    Default
    Hi, joe12south. RGB and YUV are pixel formats, not color spaces exactly. I couldn't find any definitive info from Apple about the pixel format used by FCPX, but from my testing (at least with the Color Correction effect) it's using a high precision RGB pixel format, probably 32-bit floating point RGB.

    Logarist isn't changing the pixel format. The pixel format is determined by the video app, and sometimes by the plugins you're using. The Logarist LUTs do color space transformation and display rendering. A LUT is just a way of encoding an arbitrary three-dimensional transformation, so it can be used to change colors or the color space. To the video app, it's all just numbers. The numbers only become colors when you assign a color space, which establishes the relationship between the colors and the numbers.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    1,366
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by balazer View Post
    Hi, joe12south. RGB and YUV are pixel formats, not color spaces exactly. I couldn't find any definitive info from Apple about the pixel format used by FCPX, but from my testing (at least with the Color Correction effect) it's using a high precision RGB pixel format, probably 32-bit floating point RGB.

    Logarist isn't changing the pixel format. The pixel format is determined by the video app, and sometimes by the plugins you're using. The Logarist LUTs do color space transformation and display rendering. A LUT is just a way of encoding an arbitrary three-dimensional transformation, so it can be used to change colors or the color space. To the video app, it's all just numbers. The numbers only become colors when you assign a color space, which establishes the relationship between the colors and the numbers.
    Sorry, I should have said "color model."
    So, I understand the benefit of being able to do transforms with more precision, or inside of a bigger gamut. I also understand how certain models allow for certain types of transformations that would be difficult or impossible in a different model. What I don't understand is what benefit is gained from going in and out of your LUT transformations?

    I've got a bunch of questions:

    - The NLE is working at high precision (at least 16bit) and a "wide" internal gamut. How do these LUT's make doing transforms "better"?
    - If what you're doing is transforming to a different color space, then isn't knowing the input camera's color space important? For example, the GH4 can use either sRGB or aRGB. Picture profile settings like saturation don't change the color space...why does the latter matter but not the former?
    - How is this easier? It's a minimum of 2 extra steps in FCPX for every single clip. For what gain?
    - I don't understand how this would help rescue white balance any better than you can without it? Certainly not like Lightroom (or Premiere for that matter) does with a RAW file. The color error is baked into the non-raw file, and is going to be destructive no matter what.
    - How is this different than the standardized LOG LUT's you released earlier?

    Sorry if I sound skeptical, but the language around this "LUT system" is very opaque, and we've all been bitten by LUT's that promise to be miracle cures. I'm sincerely trying to understand why it's worth the extra work. If there are real, meaningful benefits, it would be great to know how to capitalize on them.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,494
    Cool
    Quote Originally Posted by joe12south View Post
    Sorry if I sound skeptical, but the language around this "LUT system" is very opaque, and we've all been bitten by LUT's that promise to be miracle cures.
    "The proof is in the pudding"

    It's free, so I would try it out and see what you think of it after using it.

    I was not expecting much from this, but then I tried it with a few different 8-bit cameras ( and one 10-bit camera ) and was quite surprised at how good the default color was and how much more I could modify my footage before it fell apart.

    Since I mainly edit with MAGIX Vegas Pro 14, I can apply the Logarist controls to any clip in two mouse clicks, or apply it to an entire track in two mouse clicks.

    It took me about 5 minutes to install and set up Logarist default settings in Vegas Pro.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    1,366
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDingo View Post
    "The proof is in the pudding"

    It's free, so I would try it out and see what you think of it after using it.

    I was not expecting much from this, but then I tried it with a few different 8-bit cameras ( and one 10-bit camera ) and was quite surprised at how good the default color was and how much more I could modify my footage before it fell apart.

    Since I mainly edit with MAGIX Vegas Pro 14, I can apply the Logarist controls to any clip in two mouse clicks, or apply it to an entire track in two mouse clicks.

    It took me about 5 minutes to install and set up Logarist default settings in Vegas Pro.
    I did try it, and I tried the LUT's released some months ago. From a surface view it seems to move the footage to a log-based camera-independent "ideal" for processing, and then to REC.709 for output. I'm struggling to find scenarios where it is materially "easier" or "better" to work with, though. What can I do in this space that I can't do with Resolve's plethora of tools without transforming first? I seem to be able to push the footage roughly the same amount.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #8
    Senior Member Thomas Smet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,398
    Default
    Here is a quick test I did last night with some GH4 V-log 4k to HD captured via HDMI to a Ninja Blade.

    Version using Leeming LUT.
    V-log-leeming.jpg

    Version using Logarist with some exposure adjustment in between the two luts using the FCPX color board. No other color grading.
    V-log-logarist.jpg


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,494
    Cool
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Smet View Post
    Version using Logarist with some exposure adjustment in between the two luts using the FCPX color board. No other color grading.
    Which looks more accurate to you ?

    I have no idea, but I like the Logarist color better.
    ( not a fan of yellow-green plant life )


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    251
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by joe12south View Post
    - The NLE is working at high precision (at least 16bit) and a "wide" internal gamut. How do these LUT's make doing transforms "better"?
    - If what you're doing is transforming to a different color space, then isn't knowing the input camera's color space important? For example, the GH4 can use either sRGB or aRGB. Picture profile settings like saturation don't change the color space...why does the latter matter but not the former?
    - How is this easier? It's a minimum of 2 extra steps in FCPX for every single clip. For what gain?
    - I don't understand how this would help rescue white balance any better than you can without it? Certainly not like Lightroom (or Premiere for that matter) does with a RAW file. The color error is baked into the non-raw file, and is going to be destructive no matter what.
    - How is this different than the standardized LOG LUT's you released earlier?

    Sorry if I sound skeptical, but the language around this "LUT system" is very opaque, and we've all been bitten by LUT's that promise to be miracle cures. I'm sincerely trying to understand why it's worth the extra work. If there are real, meaningful benefits, it would be great to know how to capitalize on them.
    How do these LUTs make color correction better? Here's a concrete example. Say you underexposed a shot by 2/3 of a stop, by which I mean that if the ISO setting or the exposure would have been 2/3 of a stop higher, the shot would have turned out just how you wanted. Using normal color correction tools, only a specially shaped curve could fully correct that. Using lift/gamma/gain or some other shadow/mid/highlight tools you could come pretty close, except in the highlights near the clipping point. In Logarist, you just drag the offset slider up until the image is as bright as you want. It's a simple one-dimensional control, instead of a complex curve or separate low/mid/high adjustments. The result in Logarist will be nearly identical to increasing the ISO setting in the camera.

    To correct white balance with traditional tools, you need to correct the shadows, midtones, and highlights separately if you want to achieve the same color balance across the whole image. In Logarist, it's just one color control for the entire image.

    Color is baked into a non-raw file. But when you know how the camera did its transformation from raw sensor channel values to color values, that transformation can be inverted, taking the image from colors back to the raw domain. That's what I do here, though not all the way back to raw. I transform the camera's color values back to scene referred linear color, which is one step removed from raw sensor channel values. Of course the end-to-end transformation is not lossless. It's not the same as having a raw image. It's been de-bayered, sharpened, noise reduced, clipped, and quantized, and compressed. But that doesn't mean it's bad. A 10-bit uncompressed camera log recording isn't raw, but anyone would be hard pressed to tell the difference. In terms of color correction, a high precision log space with an extended range of highlights gives you nearly everything that the raw image had.

    To use still photography as an analogy, would you shoot JPEG and bring that into Photoshop for color correction? It's far better to shoot raw, use Adobe Camera Raw as your first pass, and then make additional changes in Photoshop. Logarist isn't quite the same as shooting in raw, but it's closer.

    Knowing the camera's color space is important in Logarist, and that's why I have dozens of different input transforms covering as many cameras as I could. On the GH4, the sRGB / Adobe RGB setting only affects still images. The color space of the GH4's video output is determined by the Photo Style setting, including all of the color and contrast adjustments.

    Logarist is similar to my previous log LUTs, but this time I have explicit support for several different video apps, lots more cameras, and I've developed new methods for handling highlights.

    In FCPX, after making corrections to one clip, you can save the effects as a preset so they can be applied to more clips in a single step. So the extra work is really just for the first clip, and after that it's less work.

    No one is twisting your arm here. If your style of shooting lets you get the color and exposure almost perfect in the camera and you already have LUTs that give you the look you want, you're not going to benefit much from more advanced color correction tools. If you're comfortable working the way you have been, by all means keep doing it. I can't convert all the skeptics. I just know that for me, this new way of working has proven much better, and I wanted to share that with people.


    3 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

Page 1 of 10 12345 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •