C100: Canon Log. Wow!

Erik Naso

Erik Naso

Veteran
I did some test shooting this afternoon with the C100 in our studio and all I can say is wow! I did a quick grade and looks great. This is a frame grab from the noon show.

Really quick grade with Magic Bullet Colorista II
8245019493_e00671c22e_b.jpg

Ungraded
8245024523_4d0ca3a627_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
LOG is really meant for expanded range. The graded looks pretty much like what you'd get if you'd shot "EOS Standard". I suggest shooting LOG with something that has some good DR going on to it.
 
I get that but I needed to test the camera before I go out and shoot tomorrow. All outside. I wanted to test grading Canon Log and I was pleased how easy it is to work with. I'm not a fan of a baked in look.
 
Erik Naso said:
I get that but I needed to test the camera before I go out and shoot tomorrow. All outside. I wanted to test grading Canon Log and I was pleased how easy it is to work with. I'm not a fan of a baked in look.
Click to expand...

If you're shooting AVCHD though, probably best to go "baked".
 
Gary Huff said:
If you're shooting AVCHD though, probably best to go "baked".
Click to expand...

wait. what?

that's quite backwards. the saving grace of this camera's limited built in codec is that you can shoot it LOG.

i get what you're saying about the codec not being great for pushing and pulling hard grades, but it will hold up just fine for simple grades, and perfectly fine for any type of grade if you transcode to prores or whatnot.

all this camera shoots is AVCHD, so not seeing your logic. you bake it, it's toast. you log it, make any kind of paper you like.
 
Ha! I choose to not. I didn't with the AF-100 and I wont with the C100. I can go in so many diffrent directions with the Log setting it's worth it. AVCHD grades just fine. But if you prefer to shot with a look that's cool.
 
I think many people under estimate the amount you can push some AVCHD footage around. I have the AF100 and think it pushes around rather well.
 
imdjay said:
wait. what?

that's quite backwards. the saving grace of this camera's limited built in codec is that you can shoot it LOG.

i get what you're saying about the codec not being great for pushing and pulling hard grades, but it will hold up just fine for simple grades, and perfectly fine for any type of grade if you transcode to prores or whatnot.

all this camera shoots is AVCHD, so not seeing your logic. you bake it, it's toast. you log it, make any kind of paper you like.
Click to expand...
+1.
 
swanny said:
I think many people under estimate the amount you can push some AVCHD footage around. I have the AF100 and think it pushes around rather well.
Click to expand...

i've been abusing the holy hell out of 5d footage for years now, for event fast paced mashup videos with an average of 80 shots per minute, i just don't have time to transcode them and give them each much attention. i only work with native 5d footage and i've not had complaints, im sure i would have a notch in results if i transcoded, but it's not not worth it.
 
Erik Naso said:
I did some test shooting this afternoon with the C100 in our studio and all I can say is wow! I did a quick grade and looks great. This is a frame grab from the noon show.
Click to expand...

Thank goodness for you Erik. Nice to a properly exposed shot in Canon Log from the C100.
 
It's no different than why S-log in XDCam-EX isn't the greatest.

BTW, I want to see some of this "crazy" grading. I wouldn't be surprised if it's not that crazy.
 
Gary Huff said:
LOG is really meant for expanded range. The graded looks pretty much like what you'd get if you'd shot "EOS Standard". I suggest shooting LOG with something that has some good DR going on to it.
Click to expand...

Why use log only in such scenarios? I would use log in all scenarios, because of the highlights rollof. Okey, granted, this scene probably doesn't have anything above 80IRE
so no point in using log.
 
It seems that the way to test a log/thin codec combo is to shoot some fine gradents (clear sky, smooth walls, cyc/cove shadows) and grade them up. And enjoy the banding, or lack of ?

S
 
Even on this example you can see the background on the verge of banding. The face is also rather soft and lacking fine shades, but that is a matter of taste.

@kinoks:
If you just need the highlights rolloff, use the WideDR gamma. That's exactly what it is doing: long rolloff above the knee, but keeping the mids detailed. Log only makes sense if you actually want to exctract more detail from the extremes and are ready to sacrifice the mids, it is not about the rolloff.
 
morgan_moore said:
It seems that the way to test a log/thin codec combo is to shoot some fine gradents (clear sky, smooth walls, cyc/cove shadows) and grade them up. And enjoy the banding, or lack of ?
Click to expand...

LOG shooting has nothing to do with that. Fine gradients are helped by higher color depth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top