Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 103
  1. Collapse Details
    #41
    Senior Member Thomas Smet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,397
    Default
    Balazer,

    I sent you a message with a link to the material you requested. Let me know if this stuff worked for you. Thanks.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    4,264
    Default
    I would love to see this in premiere! Are there any Adobe plans in the works?


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    251
    Default
    Maybe someday. Currently Premiere doesn't have the right color tools for a log space.


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

  4. Collapse Details
    #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    650
    Default
    I tried Logarist with some Sony FS7 footage. I liked how it made adjustments of exposure and white balance linear, definitely a quick way of working although I'd say that I don't find grading FS7's Slog3 particularly difficult "traditional" Logarist-less way. One thing I noticed unfortunately is a much increased appearance of banding and blockiness in the footage graded this way after it is exported out, particularly in shadow areas. It's been said that even 10 bits are kind of not enough or barely enough for 14 stops of latitude and Slog3- it's short comings are particularly critical in the shadows range which is starved of bits of information (mathematically). It get's even worse when the signal is linear as in the case of FS7 raw (where even 12 bits are not enough). My worry is that Loarists's first step which makes the footage even flatter contributes to that - my understanding is that the second of the Logarist LUT's refers to the levels that the first of Logarist's pair of LUT's creates (am I correct?). If I'm wrong, what could be the reason? If I'm right, I can't even imagine what happens in case of an 8 bit footage.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    251
    Default
    Hi, broughtonfilm. The banding and blockiness you're seeing were already present in the source footage, and aren't being made any worse by the processing. Logarist operates entirely in the high precision 32-bit floating point space, so it doesn't matter how "flat" the color space is. The log space is a faithful representation of the source. In fact the shadows of a log space are more spread out than in a regular camera or display color space.

    What really matters for the appearance of that banding and blockiness is how those bottom stops are mapped into the output. What you want is for those bottom few stops to be mapped very low in the output, which means they'll be compressed to near black and have very low contrast. Your previous workflow was probably already doing that. You'll need to make sure that the same thing happens when you work in Logarist. Normally it's as simple as setting the exposure correctly in the camera and applying the appropriate exposure compensation afterwards. I haven't used the FS7, but from working with other S-Log cameras I know that typically you need to overexpose by as much as one to two stops, and then compensate in post. Of course you can also use a Shadow adjustment tool or a curve to give the shadows whatever specific treatment you want. Be careful too when reducing the contrast: that brings the shadows up.

    If you want more help, please upload a short clip in S-Log 3 and some still frames of your corrected output. I can take a whack at it and try to figure out what went wrong.


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

  6. Collapse Details
    #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    650
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by balazer View Post
    Hi, broughtonfilm. The banding and blockiness you're seeing were already present in the source footage, and aren't being made any worse by the processing. Logarist operates entirely in the high precision 32-bit floating point space, so it doesn't matter how "flat" the color space is. The log space is a faithful representation of the source. In fact the shadows of a log space are more spread out than in a regular camera or display color space.

    What really matters for the appearance of that banding and blockiness is how those bottom stops are mapped into the output. What you want is for those bottom few stops to be mapped very low in the output, which means they'll be compressed to near black and have very low contrast. Your previous workflow was probably already doing that. You'll need to make sure that the same thing happens when you work in Logarist. Normally it's as simple as setting the exposure correctly in the camera and applying the appropriate exposure compensation afterwards. I haven't used the FS7, but from working with other S-Log cameras I know that typically you need to overexpose by as much as one to two stops, and then compensate in post. Of course you can also use a Shadow adjustment tool or a curve to give the shadows whatever specific treatment you want. Be careful too when reducing the contrast: that brings the shadows up.

    If you want more help, please upload a short clip in S-Log 3 and some still frames of your corrected output. I can take a whack at it and try to figure out what went wrong.
    It is not about how the shadows are spread out in log space but with how many bits these luminance values are described ( In any log signal the shadows are compromised when it comes to it). I never said that Logarist introduced the banding but that it made it more apparent. I'm describing my experience with Logarist based on actual use - I compared the output created with it with an output which I purposely matched with it in terms of the grade but created without it and the one made with Logarist has banding and emphasized macro blocking.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #47
    Senior Member Cary Knoop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Newark CA, USA
    Posts
    1,282
    Default
    From the website:

    "Logarist enables the same types of corrections available with raw images in Adobe Lightroom, but without the need to shoot in raw, and right inside your video editing application. "


    For those who believe it I have a bridge to sell!


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    251
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by broughtonfilm View Post
    It is not about how the shadows are spread out in log space but with how many bits these luminance values are described ( In any log signal the shadows are compromised when it comes to it). I never said that Logarist introduced the banding but that it made it more apparent. I'm describing my experience with Logarist based on actual use - I compared the output created with it with an output which I purposely matched with it in terms of the grade but created without it and the one made with Logarist has banding and emphasized macro blocking.
    Yup, I understand, and I'm telling you that the appearance of the banding and blockiness has only to do with how much contrast you're giving them, regardless of which color correction approach you use. Give them low contrast and the problem goes away. Please post samples if you'd like to understand more.


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

  9. Collapse Details
    #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    251
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Cary Knoop View Post
    From the website:

    "Logarist enables the same types of corrections available with raw images in Adobe Lightroom, but without the need to shoot in raw, and right inside your video editing application. "


    For those who believe it I have a bridge to sell!
    Cary, I'm not saying that compressed video offers the same quality and latitude for adjustments as raw. I'm only saying that the types of adjustments (how they work and what they do to the colors) is the same as with raw images. It's just basic color science and color management, same as used in ACES and in raw image processing.

    I invite you to try the system before you criticize. It's free, after all.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    650
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by balazer View Post
    Yup, I understand, and I'm telling you that the appearance of the banding and blockiness has only to do with how much contrast you're giving them, regardless of which color correction approach you use. Give them low contrast and the problem goes away. Please post samples if you'd like to understand more.
    What are you talking about? I'm telling you that footage exported with and without Logarist is the same in terms of contrast, colors, saturation, etc. - I matched it in DaVinci for the comparison purpose - the only difference is that the one created with Logarist shows banding and blocky artifacts and the other one does not. I'll post screen grabs of what I'm seeing later.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... 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
  •