C200 waveform follow LUT

S

Steel

New member
Is there any way to get the C200 waveform to follow the LUT when it's turned on?
I'd like to turn the REC709 LUT on for the video output and then have the waveform update for that.
The manual says 'The waveform monitor will not be affected even if a LUT is applied to the clip's video' which makes me think that there isn't an option for it.
 
I don't know if there is in the C200, but FWIW a lot of cameras don't do both specifically with the waveform.
 
That's what I figured. Thanks, NorBro.
You can probably figure out that I picked up a C200! Used, but like new with only 35 hours on it.

Just a quick question to avoid starting another thread...
When shooting in anything except raw, all gamuts are REC709, correct? There's no actual in-camera gamut setting... You can only choose your gamut when debayering from raw gamut in CRD.
I just remember that some cameras like the FS7 were a little convoluted when switching gamuts and gammas, and even with the C500 there was a Cinema Gamut menu option, it think. But for the C200, as long as I'm in MP4 or XF-AVC, I can just choose CL3,3,1,WideDR, etc. and go at it, knowing i'm in REC709 gamut, right?
(As an aside, I've cobbled together that the PRESET Canon Log 1 and 3 are the same as turning the presets to OFF and choosing CL1 or 3 from the Gamma menu. Also, the BT.709 preset is the same as the WideDR gamma. Seems...like an interesting way to do things...Although I guess choosing form the Gamma menu gives you access to the colour matrix and 'other settings' to tweak your image.
 
Congrats, I've been waiting for the C200B to drop another $1K.

So as far as your question, I'm a little confused - and it's been a few years since I last used the C200 - but the options are definitely not all REC709 in MP4 or XF-AVC if your gamma curve is set to Canon Log or Canon Log 3.

I don't remember all of the terminology and how the menu is, and I know there are built-in settings and also custom settings, but that's pretty much the bottom line: If your curve is a LOG, the recording on the card will be flat.

As far as CRD, you can use it manipulate the CRL, but you can also edit CRL in most NLEs...meaning it will import just like ProRes once you've installed the plugin on Canon's website.

Does that make sense?
 
By the way, make sure your NLE isn't automatically applying a Canon LUT upon import.

This happened to me in FCP after using the camera for the first time and I nearly passed out. Had to manually turn it off to see the flat image.
 
I haven't had a chance to go through the manual and reread everything closely yet, but I did go through this video again as I was waiting for renders/editing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BNeJdSk4BM&list=PLJr_wxggDGucItT_RQ3Zzmyo4u43AHKK5&index=2 (relevant bit starts at ~8:30)
It's the C200 training series Canon put out with Jem Schofield.

He runs through everything with both the MP4 and raw options, and it it does look like like all the MP4 gammas are within a BT.709 colour space. He doesn't mention each one specifically, but whenever there's a sample clip, a subtitle says which gamma and gamut are being used. They were all listed something like 'Canon Log 3 Gamma Curve / BT.709 Color Space."

So I guess if you want to get some larger than BT.709 you've got to go raw, unless I'm missing something big!



And yeah, I've had that same shock in FCP a couple years ago with Sony cams and LUTs!...
 
Originally I thought you were asking mostly about the curves, but I see...yeah, the color space is indeed Rec709 for MP4 and XF-AVC since it's not only baked in like that, but the camera simply does not provide any other options, like Rec.2020, and I don't think any camera ever has for 8-bit files.

It's 709 by default like with most cameras, especially at that time.

With CRL, you are naturally able to change it in CRD since the image data is able to be manipulated in post.
 
Ok gotcha! Thanks for clearing that up.
It sometimes seems that all the questions I want answered just aren't dealt with in the literature or online! haha
I feel like there's always something missing here or there that prevents my brain from properly connecting A to B.
 
It's confusing because we're in the middle of a transition (Rec2020/HDR and beyond, 8K, new displays on the market, new post processes, further RAW format development, etc).

I think you're coming from the original C500 - which I think actually did have a FW update for Rec2020, but I don't know much about it - but if you were coming from the C300 Mark II or the FS7 II (both 10-bit), you might be confused why other color spaces aren't in the C200 (a newer camera) when they are in those two cameras.

And the C200 is actually a perfect example of a distinctive camera to cause confusion because of its lack of internal 10-bit which forces to only have Rec709 in 8-bit and other options in post in the 10-bit/12-bit CRL.

Even if say Rec2020 was an option in the MP4 or XF-AVC, I don't know how well that would work with the 8-bit. It's similar to people debating if any LOG should even be available in 8-bit cameras.

Is there something you're looking for specifically? Like Rec2020? (Just wondering.)
 
Confusing is definitely the right word!

I think I was ruined by the FS7, as I started using that and just wanted to shoot in log, but it offers so many convoluted settings that I think I was expecting something more similar in the Canon. But really, it's just like any of their non cinema cameras that have log - turn it to 'on' and off you go.

It's those little things that are obvious for some, but might not be to others who haven't moved through the industry from A to B. Things like Clog 2 only being 10-bit, and Clog 3 being the successor to Clog as they were both built for 8-bit, etc.

And I think I was originally put down the wrong track a few years ago when I first started shooting log - a lot of the fluff pieces you can read/watch talk about getting all you can from the sensor, etc., and throwing words like 'cinema gamut' and 'rec.2020' around. But for the vast majority of us doing the vast majority of work, it's all going online or to regular ol' 1080p TV in SDR, which means REC.709 all the way.

This has really helped clean things up for me, and has also explained why when I tried to use the cinema gamut/clog3 to rec.709 lut it looked crap!
 
If you're using LOG, it's pretty straightforward with the gamma curve and I think the matrix for colors. Then there are some other settings for a 709 look captured inside the camera (which is sometimes needed). That one will limit the DR, even with WDR, but the colors are nice and pretty much ready out of the box.

Experimentation is always best...it's one of the fun parts about testing cameras (and it's definitely required in post). Combining different settings and workflows, sometimes you might have warmer or cooler results, less saturation, slight shifts in hue, etc.
 
Yeah, you said it. Experimentation!

The C200 has the regular presets, and then another group of settings that duplicate all the presets, but which give access to colour matrix and all the other things like knee and sharpening, etc.
I've played around with a couple Canon LUTs to see how full/full and full/narrow change things.

It's nice to have a monitor with a spot meter so, if you've got the time, you can dial in your exposure bang on. I still have trouble when I'm doing run and gun stuff with overexposing the log. I don't blow anything out, but it's usually well over what the lut is expecting, and it's back to a manual grade.
 
if you consistentlly 'over expose' (or rather correctly expose right to have a good SN ratio) then you could make your own lut for use in post 'clog-1.5' or suchlike.

personally i like the wfm in log, just open the iris till you see the top flatten and close down a touch
 
Late reply here Morgan...
That's often how I expose, using the waveform (or histogram - yuck) to save highlight - usually when I'm outside. Slapping the Canon LUTs on is usually way too much, as it's expecting C-Log 1 middle grey at 34 point whatever...
I do end up manually grading LOG quite often, but I usually don't get quite the results I want. Or at least it takes more effort, as the 3D Canon LUTs map colours to where they should be, in addition to luminance, afaik.

And just now as I type this I'm realising...
Up until very recently I've always added official LUTs through the 'info' panel on the right of FCP. This is more or less a 'destructive' edit (not really, but it makes turning the LUT off and on a pain and means any other adjustments done are applied on the LUT-adjusted footage). Now I'm (finally) adding an adjustment layer, and so I've be able to expose my footage as you said, make something to bring down the overall exposure, and then apply the LUT to this, and everything should work out peachy, yes?

Then I could focus on saving the highlights in an outdoor scene and not having to try and gauge where I think 34% grey is going to be when I'm outside shooting quickly.
 
If you're adding a LUT from the 'Info Inspector' panel and then trying any exposure adjustments you've ruined your footage.

You need to use 'Custom LUT' from the 'Effects' panel and apply any exposure adjustments before 'Custom LUT' (same thing as a 'Color Board' or something else being on top of 'Custom LUT').

You can bring back 2-3-4 stops of information like this.
 
That's what I meant about a 'destructive' edit. If your exposure is on then it can work out OK, but if you're off at all, then it's always a pita to turn the LUT off, do an adjustment, then turn it back on again. Since FCPX doesn't have adjustment layers built in, it took me a little while to figure out the workflow.
It's much easier now to stick the CUTOm LUT on an adjustment layer and be able to make individual adjustments to each clip when needed.
 
i dont know anything about any post apart from davinci where one typically adds the lut as the last node to avoid a destructive effect..

i just dont get 'exposure is difficult' open up get flt bits on the wfm, close a little. done.. any camera any look (apart from 2005 knee)
 
All I mean with 'exposure is difficult' is that when I apply the official Canon LUTs, or really almost any camera/technical LUT, my image is more often than not quite overexposed. It's tough to remember to keep the exposure down when shooting log. I mean, sometimes it's fine, and what you're saying about just watching the highlights and keeping the waveform/histogram a half-stop or whatever below makes sense. It's just that a manual grade is the only thing that'll work then. And again, I'm not super experienced, but a technical LUT is expecting certain luminance values, right? A 3D LUT maps both the luminance and colour information, and if you send it a signal it's not expecting, then it's going to blow out.

But yeah, maybe I'll do a test. Expose by eye, save the highlights, bring it down a bit in post, and try a LUT. Or else just do a full manual grade. That compared to the 'proper' Canon Log 1/2/3 exposure with the correct LUT applied.

There's always another rabbit hole to go down...haha
 
I use the arri lut and expose down (gain slider) in a node before that lut.

each shot the post process is basically to adjust the gain slider a little, which is well within what Im used to time wise

==

my image is more often than not quite overexposed.

the only over exposed image is one with unintensionally clipped highlights*

an image that arrives in post looking a little bright is not over exposed -its just free of noise and ready for a little curve down

*it is normal to clip some highlights.. halogen spots in a ceiling, car lights ..skies and like can be clipped but that is dancing into the world of 'art', which is fine if art is wanted.
 
Last edited:
Well, I feel like a complete idiot. I don't know what was going on in my head, but for whatever reason, I wasn't making the connection that if when I stick the lut on and it blows the image out that I can just reduce the exposure beforehand. I've been thinking, 'I overexposed too much to use the C-Log lut again, so I guess I've got to do it manually.' Derp.

'the only over exposed image is one with unintentionally clipped highlights*' - of course. I really don't know what I was thinking! This is such a basic thing and I feel like such a clown, but I haven't been doing that with any of the luts I've been using so far. I always either try to expose with a grey card if I have time, or to use a lut on-camera.

My brain has been awoken. Thanks, Morgan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top