C-Log Coming to the Canon 5D IV

[NorBro]

A 4K/60p DSLR with C-Log would be very powerful. Before the C200 was announced, I speculated that the 1DX Mark II might not be getting C-Log because the new mystery camera will have 4K/60p with various C-Log options, and the timing just isn't right for the 1DX to get it. But could happen in the future.

[david_p]

has anyone heard if LOG will come to the 1DXmkII as well? if not would there be a technical reason or rather some sort of protecting some other camera?

david

[James0b57]

Pretty cool to see C-Log in a 5D!

I was going through old 1DC footage and images earlier this week, and I must say they are still very nice images, and better than old C300 video. When I see old C300 footage, I slightly cringe. The draw backs of the 1DC were always the rolling shutter, and just wishing there was an extra two stops dynamic range. That said, the 4K footage still has a quality that is wonderful, and the APS-H frame is glorious to work with.

[Phosphor]

Got the Clog update done last week in Burbank. Walk in - no appointment - and the update was done in an hour.

I haven't tested the HDMI out, but I assume it would carry through. HDMI is only HD, so I'm not sure why you'd want to use that, though.

[Victor[BC]]

Do we know if clog is available via hdmi out or just internal?

[Terry Nixon]

C-Log Update for 5D Mark IV from Itasca Very Fast

We shipped a couple of 5D Mark IV bodies out for the C-Log update last Thursday from Austin to the Itasca Service Center, and received them back today.

Canon USA Service Centers:

• Jamesburg, NJ
• Lyndhurst, NJ (possible to walk-in)
• Canon Virginia
• Itasca, IL
• Burbank, CA (possible to walk-in)
• Costa Mesa, CA (possible to walk-in) Customers need to call 1-800-652-2666

[jcs]

To each, their own. Depending on what you are looking for, you can attack the test for various angles.

I prefer looking at it from a "light meter" perspective: determine the EV for the scene and then use that same EV for both picture profiles. You can over or under expose as you like, but you'll get the performance of the picture profiles relative to the same unbiased 'norm'.

You can of course throw that line of thinking out the window and just say: "I will expose each profile optimally, as if I was actually shooting the scene, regardless if I end up with wildly different camera settings". And I'm not saying that is wrong. It's kind of maximising performance, which we all try to do when actually shooting. I just don't prefer it for a strict test when trying to compare A to A.

-----

If I remember correctly, Canon Log pulls the exposure with 1^2/3 stops. You'd think it would be maybe two stops (ISO400), but I remember it being slight less when checking scopes. So you would then have to shoot the EOS HD profile at ISO125 to get the same white clip point, assuming you use ISO400 for Canon Log. And this is in turn assuming EOS HD doesn't pull down the white clip to less than max in the picture profile editor (I haven't used EOS HD).

I think if you match highlights, you can compare how many stops into the shadows internal Canon Log can provide vs. a custom picture style, and thus get a good idea how much more usable DR is being provided.

[AndreeOnline]

If the test matches highlights, we've got something constant.

To each, their own. Depending on what you are looking for, you can attack the test for various angles.

I prefer looking at it from a "light meter" perspective: determine the EV for the scene and then use that same EV for both picture profiles. You can over or under expose as you like, but you'll get the performance of the picture profiles relative to the same unbiased 'norm'.

You can of course throw that line of thinking out the window and just say: "I will expose each profile optimally, as if I was actually shooting the scene, regardless if I end up with wildly different camera settings". And I'm not saying that is wrong. It's kind of maximising performance, which we all try to do when actually shooting. I just don't prefer it for a strict test when trying to compare A to A.

-----

If I remember correctly, Canon Log pulls the exposure with 1^2/3 stops. You'd think it would be maybe two stops (ISO400), but I remember it being slight less when checking scopes. So you would then have to shoot the EOS HD profile at ISO125 to get the same white clip point, assuming you use ISO400 for Canon Log. And this is in turn assuming EOS HD doesn't pull down the white clip to less than max in the picture profile editor (I haven't used EOS HD).

[jcs]

But you'd have to keep the exposure values the same, no?

You will only increase/decrease the overall brightness of the images, but their relative performance will stay the same. Which make sense, since they are different picture profiles.

If the test matches highlights, we've got something constant. Then we can examine the mids & shadows to see relative performance. His Canon Log example is underexposed compared to the blown highlights in the EOSHD example.

When the 1DX II came out, I experimented creating log-like picture styles (and also tested Technicolor Cinestyle). The final 8-bit graded result was a bit too thin for skin, so I dropped the log approach and started working on picture styles optimized for skin (Filmic Skin).

[AndreeOnline]

AndreeOnline what do you think of the 1DC having owned it.

I still have mine. It sits wrapped in plastic after the latest CPS service and serves as a backup body. I think it's a great camera. It's pretty unique in that it gives you a 4k DCI, 1.28x crop image with Canon Log. The underlying still camera, 1Dx, still holds up very well for what it does. I was always very happy with the IQ both from stills and video. On the 1Dc you shoot to normal fast CF cards and those can be found for around $120 for 128GB.

I think the 5D Mark IV is a good camera all in all, since it combines high res stills with good video features. But the current crop will not change and even if you put wider glass on the camera to compensate, you will still get the perspective of that glass (albeit the center crop).

I think the larger sensor area of the 1Dc makes it kind of special. I admit to also loving the red 'C' logo on the body. Now that they can be found for $3k, I think they are a solid buy for people interested in storytelling.

But the reason you ask this at all is because it's not an easy answer. I'm sure you've thought about it for a while and it's sort of a tossup. I really appreciate having the DPAF, but it's not a catch all. Especially not if I were to do scripted work. I don't think I'd use it at all, actually. I use it most for spontaneous stuff I shoot with my kids and then throw away, because I can't use it for anything... =) Oh, well...

[ollywood88]

AndreeOnline what do you think of the 1DC having owned it. I am still gearing to this over the 5dmk4 if they solved the crop I would of been solved. But the 1DC still looks the beast. I think for auto focus I would get a cheaper a6500 on a gimbal your talking one or two walking shots wide open. Unless I get a 24mm dialled to 5.6 on the 1dc.

Just love the 4k image out of the 1DC. Will go well I think with my Canon C500

[AndreeOnline]

Can you expose to match the highlights? The CLog version looks underexposed relative to EOS HD.

But you'd have to keep the exposure values the same, no?

You will only increase/decrease the overall brightness of the images, but their relative performance will stay the same. Which make sense, since they are different picture profiles.

[AndreeOnline]

Thanks. So it's the same as with the implementation on the 1Dc.

This is a good thing. To me, it indicates that Canon is pulling the exposure internally in Log mode and then uses ISO to push the image back up according to the log profile. This is how you get additional latitude, not available in other modes or picture profiles.

EOS HD log and all other curves you find online is nothing else than what you can recreate yourself with the picture profile. It's easy. It's just a flattening of the image to remove contrast. What Canon is doing is actually giving you more latitude—similar to HTP but with increased reach over the whole image from highlights to shadows.

For people like me, who now shoot with a 1Dx mkII, that don't have access to Canon Log, I'd suggest Technicolor CineStyle. At least for cameras shooting with the 422, 500Mbit/s .mjpeg. If nothing else, that provides a documented, established curve that make sense in other apps like DaVinci Resolve, Filmconvert and various other LUT apps.

Thanks for the upload.

[Thomaskl3d]

here with ISO 400 and the with ISO 100:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ja7xzypq4u..._100_.mp4?dl=0

well, it clips before 255

[jcs]

so here is a quick test out of the window:

same settings, ISO 400

CANON LOG (Camera Upgrade) VS. EOS HD CLOG

Can you expose to match the highlights? The CLog version looks underexposed relative to EOS HD.