C-Log Coming to the Canon 5D IV

Yes, Regular Vs. Clog. And the standard ist over-exposed in the back, but still underexposed on my face.
I`ve been out yesterday with the 5D doing some more shots with my family and children in the brigt sun and shadows. In my opinion it`s a huge benefit. Before I was shooting only with my c300II because of clog2 and never touched the video option on the 5D again. Now its really worth working with the 5D again. There is still the 8bit issue and a heavy compression internal, but this can be solved by ext. recording. The small form factor is great, when you always had to carry the C300II with you.

I really appreciate the update and the 100 bucks are quite fair for what you get. here are some ungraded shots in the shadows:


.1G1A2203.00_03_50_03.Still002.jpg1G1A2203.00_04_13_01.Still003.jpg1G1A2203.00_05_35_05.Still004.jpg1G1A2203.00_07_46_02.Still001.jpg
 
Great shots in CLOG Buddy.

Guys what do you think. Canon 1DC or the 5DMK4 I put a post about it earlier. I am only holding on to the 5dmk4 for autofocus.

Was it just a rumour that the canon 5dmk4 was getting a 1.27x crop and 3k frame rates? Is that no happening now?

Thanks
 
ollywood88 said:
Canon 1DC or the 5DMK4 I put a post about it earlier. I am only holding on to the 5dmk4 for autofocus.

Was it just a rumour that the canon 5dmk4 was getting a 1.27x crop and 3k frame rates? Is that no happening now?
Click to expand...

I went from 1Dc to 1Dx mkII. I would not have gone to the 5D mkIV (due to crop). When asked on Twitter about the same thing, I said that for strictly cinematic IQ, I'd choose the 1Dc over the 5D mkIV. But the 5D has other qualities, apart from good video, that might make it interesting. Depends on your needs.

As good as DPAF can be, realistically it's a tool that might cover 60% of focusing needs. But there are many situations where you'd still be on manual. It's also a question of what you'd be paying for the cameras.
 
I am bummed Canon had to give the MK IV such an extreme crop in 4k. That along with the codec choice just threw a wrench in my whole setup. I was ready to move up from my MKIII but just could not stay with Canon.
 
I have the "EOSHD C-Log" picture profile for my 5D MIV -- is it worth upgrading to the Canon C-Log? I have been pretty happy with the EOSHD C-Log thus far.

From my understanding I'll get maybe 1-2 extra stops of dynamic range on the official Canon C-Log?
 
1-2 extra stops would be a dramatic difference if true!

I would go for the official update regardless...it's worth to have it done right by the people who make the camera. (Not to say EOSHD's work isn't worth it.)
 
You cannot compare the EOSHD C-Log with the new CLog Option from canon. The EOSHD ist just a picture style, while the new option works long before in the signal processing. Youll get far more then 1-2 Stops.
 
@Thomaskl3d

If you find the time, could you check the following: set ISO to 100 and over expose your image in Canon Log. What does the histogram look like? Does it go all the way to the right, or does it 'clip' well before 255?
 
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.
 
jcs said:
Can you expose to match the highlights? The CLog version looks underexposed relative to EOS HD.
Click to expand...

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 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
 
ollywood88 said:
AndreeOnline what do you think of the 1DC having owned it.
Click to expand...

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...
 
AndreeOnline said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top