C300: C-Log doubts in C300

D

Dave Yoder

New member
I'm having a little difficulty understanding why so many people are advising to shoot C-Log on all occasions. It seems to me that doing so in light that is anything other than very high contrast is going to give you less dynamic range than, say, shooting in WDR. Yes, twelve stops of DR might be available with C-log, but that doesn't mean you're actually using it, is that not correct?

For example, say I'm shooting in shade, or some situation where there isn't all that much contrast. I look at a flattish, thin C-log band across my waveform and it seems to me that represents a whole lot of wasted dynamic range, range that would be used if you were in WDR. It would require a lot more pushing and pulling in the grade, which seems counter intuitive, considering my understanding of how you want to handle compressed images.

Wouldn't usually be better to use as much of that waveform as possible as long as you aren't clipping?
 
I also think C-log is a bad choice in most cases. I shoot with the C100 internal codec, though, so can't comment from personal experience on the C300 other than to agree it's often best not to shoot log on a compressed codec, and the C300 is obviously a compressed codec.

It will be interesting to see what the best profile to use on the C300 Mark II is with a 10 bit codec and 4:4:4 color space in 2k. Does anyone know if the C300 Mark II can still get 15 stops of dynamic range while not using Canon Log 2?

I believe the C100 gets 12 stops of dynamic range in both C-log and Wide-DR.
 
Last edited:
I shoot in C Log all the time. No baked in saturation and shadow detail is preserved. I like deciding what I want to see in the shadows. I grade all my work and like getting the most out the image I possibly can. C Log does this for me but if you dont and feel it's not necessary well then just choose a gamma that suits you.
 
Erik Naso said:
I shoot in C Log all the time. No baked in saturation and shadow detail is preserved. I like deciding what I want to see in the shadows. I grade all my work and like getting the most out the image I possibly can. C Log does this for me but if you dont and feel it's not necessary well then just choose a gamma that suits you.
Click to expand...

+1
 
I think you raise a valid concern. I haven't experienced any problems in adding contrast or saturation to images on the very compressed C100, but logic does say that shooting with such a compressed codec, the closer you can get in camera to the final look you want, the better.
 
With the C100 I found the AVCHD codec pretty good. Yes I shot C Log with it too. Again I think if you can get more information out of the image then you have more to work with in post. I really dont find noise an issue with either camera. base ISO of 850 is pretty good and 1600 isnt a problem either. YMMV.
 
When grading C-log to a normal looking image on the internal C100 codec I've found compared to graded Wide-DR I've gotten more noise, more artifacting, and a lack of ability (due to artifcating and looking over sharpened) to bring in post to the same level of sharpness as Wide-DR (at default in-camera sharpness settings for both, which is -10 and -2, respectively); I'd assume this is because in order to grade C-log I have to push the image more than with Wide-DR. I've done direct comparisons and those were my conclusions.


Another thing I don't like about C-log is how many people use it and then leave the image flat doing some kind of psudo light grade, leaving a lot of bland (flat) looking C100 footage on the Internet. I think that's the reason a good number of people still think the 5D has a better image (which it doesn't (assuming not shot with the RAW hack)), is because in-camera the 5D has a pop to it that a lot of poorly graded C-series videos online often shot in C-log do not have. A common example is when Joe Simon first started using the C100 (using C-log) a lot of people seemed to prefer the look of his previous 5D wedding videos.
 
Erik Naso said:
I shoot in C Log all the time. No baked in saturation and shadow detail is preserved. I like deciding what I want to see in the shadows. I grade all my work and like getting the most out the image I possibly can. C Log does this for me but if you dont and feel it's not necessary well then just choose a gamma that suits you.
Click to expand...

I shoot C-log almost all the time and for the same reasons. That said I have had a number of projects recently where I've had to shoot Wide DR so that the client could have something more ready to go to air.

With the C300 Wide DR is definitely noisier than C-log even at the base ISO of 850. Wide DR looks amazing and has beautiful color out of the gate but I have it found it to be more prone to artifacting than C-log. I'll get edges of contrast (e.g. window sill, light fixture, etc.) that get a thin color band on them with Wide DR which never happens with C-log. Similarly, certain patterns are more prone to moire with Wide Dr which never are with C-log.

In terms of the Wide DR noise - I'm anal about doing ABB's so that is not the issue. What I've found is that I need in-camera NR of ~5 at ISO 850/1600 for the image to look similar to C-log. I might bump that up to NR of 6 or 7 at ISO 3200 with Wide DR. I doubt I'd go above that ISO with Wide DR but would easily go above that with C-log. I've shot as high as ISO 20,000 with C-log - it is noisy but is still very natural/organic feeling.
 
I've never shot log with any of my cameras. Almost none of my clients(mostly network) would know what to do with it, they would all freak out(what's wrong with this?!) and it would end up airing just like they received it.

IF you shoot log IT MUST BE GRADED. PERIOD. That's the whole point of it. You bring in footage from the field with as much un-adulterated information as possible and adjust it then. Log is not WYSIWYG. You also have to know HOW to properly expose log and that can vary depending on the type of log and gamma settings.

I prefer a great look in-camera, but I'm not shooting narrative and I'm not editing or grading the footage, either. I like to hand off images that I would be happy with running as-is.

And for for the love of God, I wish this flat, milky look that everyone has a hard-on for for the last few years would die and go away. The "look" has its place, but not on every single commercial on TV.
 
In 3.5 years with the C300, everything I've ever shot is in C log. Can't imagine a situation in which I wouldn't.
 
Graham King said:
In 3.5 years with the C300, everything I've ever shot is in C log. Can't imagine a situation in which I wouldn't.
Click to expand...

Yep....C-Log is super easy to work with. I can get fantastic results very quickly. I don't even consider using any other setting with this camera. Delivers great results every time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top