Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 103
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Senior Member Thomas Smet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,384
    Default
    So far I'm really impressed with how this handles V-log from the GH4. Cine-D seems to clip much easier than it does with manual grading or when using Leeming LUT. I know the shots are not clipped because I can recover them and other luts do not show this.

    Are there recommended exposure levels you suggest for Cine-D to avoid this?

    Same but opposite issue with V-log. When using these luts my shots get a lot darker than they do with the Leeming lut, Panasonic lut or my own manual grading. Are their recorded exposure levels that are different from normal V-log luts to shoot with or is it natural to be that much darker and I grade in between?

    Finally why do you suggest only adjusting the global exposure setting in the FCPX color board and not the highs and shadows? I find this to be very limiting in grading by not tweaking the highs and shadows.

    By the way this lut is extremely slow on my 2012 i7 iMac with 24GB ram and a 2GB GTX680m GPU. Not slow in terms of playback but FCPX really locks up for a good 20 seconds when I apply the first lut. I assume there is a lot going on in the background vs other luts to make it run that slow.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Senior Member Thomas Smet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,384
    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
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,453
    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
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Senior Member Thomas Smet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,384
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDingo View Post
    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 )
    Shot this during the summer in Colorado but I'm pretty sure the plants were more green than yellow. Also pretty sure the Leeming LUT wouldn't be that much off either so I'm not entirely sure which is more accurate. The Logarist version does seem more accurate to my memory however.

    This thing sure is slow however and I'm finding it to be rather painful to use in FCPX.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    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
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,453
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Smet View Post
    This thing sure is slow however and I'm finding it to be rather painful to use in FCPX.
    Using my 6 year old first generation i7 desktop at home with 16 GB of RAM, it takes MAGIX Vegas Pro 14 about 3 seconds to display the Logarist image for the very first time, and then I can adjust things in what appears to be real-time. I did upgrade the graphics card about 18 months ago to an AMD R9 280 card and Vegas Pro does make good use of the video card. ( my rendering times were cut in half just by adding the new video card )

    At work I'm using a 5th generation i7 desktop with the same AMD video card and the Logarist image pops up in about 1 second for the very first time, and everything is real-time after that.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,453
    Cool
    Quote Originally Posted by joe12south View Post
    I'm struggling to find scenarios where it is materially "easier" or "better" to work with, though.
    What about the default color when you're working with well shot footage ?

    I saw better default color with Logarist right away.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    1,366
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDingo View Post
    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 )
    If it's a more accurate input LUT than Panasonic's or Paul's, that I can see a use for.

    But how does this LUT make my NLE perform white balance adjustment on an 8-bit baked image like a 14-bit RAW image in Lightroom?


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,453
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by joe12south View Post
    But how does this LUT make my NLE perform white balance adjustment on an 8-bit baked image like a 14-bit RAW image in Lightroom?
    I suspect that it's not the same as a 14-bit RAW image, but the Logarist color space does seem a lot better with 8-bit and 10-bit footage than anything else I've worked with.

    I'm guessing that higher precision math is part of why Logarist works better, and maybe why it's slower on some computers.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    1,366
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDingo View Post
    What about the default color when you're working with well shot footage ?

    I saw better default color with Logarist right away.
    I built an input LUT with 3D LUT creator around the same time Paul Leeming made his. Color and exposure near dead on, and I don't have to apply any clunky workarounds.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 123456 ... 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
  •