Cinestyle to Rec709 transform LUT?

S

Seanik

Well-known member
Hello!

I just inherited an editing project where one of the cameras shot using Cinestyle (on a Canon 6D). I've been looking for just a basic, boring old Cinestyle to Rec709 transform LUT, but cannot seem to find one that doesn't have a "look" burned into it. Does anyone know if something like this even exists, or was Cinestyle primarily meant to be hand-graded only?


Thanks!
 
IMO, Cinestyle is already a look so you can't do much with it (vs. a logarithmic option) and it's best to work with it manually.
 
Thanks, that's kind of what I thought, for the most part.

The idea is to bring both the Cinestyle footage and footage from the other cam (shot in c-log) into rec709 for matching. Then grade for look.

A transform LUT would be immensely helpful (and minimally destructive) to this end.
 
Yep. That's the alternative I was hoping to avoid since I don't have a shot of a chip chart from both cams.
 
Seanik said:
I've been looking for just a basic, boring old Cinestyle to Rec709 transform LUT, but cannot seem to find one that doesn't have a "look" burned into it. Does anyone know if something like this even exists, or was Cinestyle primarily meant to be hand-graded only?
Click to expand...

What do you mean when you say the LUTs you have found have a 'look' to them?

NorBro said:
IMO, Cinestyle is already a look so you can't do much with it (vs. a logarithmic option) and it's best to work with it manually.
Click to expand...

Cinestyle is a log curve based on Cineon like all the rest. The whole purpose of its existence was to enable the 5D mkII to integrate better with professional workflows (including scanned Film as it were) when used as a B or crash cam at the peak of the 5D fever.

Technicolor released both the CineStyle picture profile and a corresponding S-LUT to convert back to Rec. 709. It's in the package from Technicolor IIRC.

That said, grading the footage with normal primary grading tools to your liking will work equally well (or better).
 
AndreeOnline said:
It's in the package from Technicolor IIRC.
Click to expand...

A-ha!!! I didn't even think to look for it there (because it's not my camera with the Cinestyle profile loaded into it), and behold! Thank you for remembering this!

*note that it lives in an .mga (Apple Color?) format, so I had to dig up "LUT Buddy" from the dusty corners of the internet to convert it to .cube.
 
AndreeOnline said:
Cinestyle is a log curve based on Cineon like all the rest. The whole purpose of its existence was to enable the 5D mkII to integrate better with professional workflows (including scanned Film as it were) when used as a B or crash cam at the peak of the 5D fever.
Click to expand...

Cinestyle is a pseudo log curve which provides less contrast and desaturation.

Hardware needs to be optimized to provide real LOG and to affect dynamic range.

If you don't decrease the contrast to -4 and saturation to -2 (per their recommendation), it can look like a stylistic grade. And like the 100+ other profiles that attempt to do the same thing.

I do understand its purpose, but the thinking was limited back then as there were no other options.
 
NorBro said:
Cinestyle is a pseudo log curve which provides less contrast and desaturation.

Hardware needs to be optimized to provide real LOG and to affect dynamic range.
Click to expand...

Fair enough... although given that the footage I'm working with is (A Cam) C-Log on 4:2:0 8-bit AVCHD and (B Cam) Cinestyle on 4:2:0 8-bit h.264, I'm just happy to get both back to spec with as few fingerprints on them as possible (via transform LUTs). And to your point, C-Log(1) isn't that much better than Cinestyle in that it tops out at 800%. I'm not expecting to get much out of either one... I'm just trying to bring it back without my waveform ending up looking like a minecraft landscape.

A gentle journey to rec709(ish) is a big win, and allows me to keep my powder dry for affecting basic corrections that I'm sure I'll need to do (because I highly doubt that any of this was properly exposed for log, e.g. 90% white = 60-ish ire).

Your thoughts on this were much appreciated. Thanks for the help with this!
 
Last edited:
C-Log on Canon's stills cameras (besides the 1DC) stinks, quite frankly, but it's still better than Cinestyle. When comparing bright areas side-by-side during the process of capturing images you can clearly see which one retains more information. Glad it worked out!
 
NorBro said:
Cinestyle is a pseudo log curve which provides less contrast and desaturation.

Hardware needs to be optimized to provide real LOG and to affect dynamic range..
Click to expand...

To this I say: no and no.

As per Technicolor's own CineStyle notes, the sensor data is treated with a log curve based on Cineon. To record a linear signal with a logarithmic transfer function you don't need any special hardware, or preparations. It's simply a specific way to distribute a number of stops of light in a more sensible fashion.

CineStyle from Technicolor is the ONLY curve that was developed with, or at least sanctioned by Canon. This allowed Technicolor to bypass Canon's own base curves like Natural, Portrait, Landscape, Standard and Faithful. This is something that NO ONE else can do. Even if you reduce Contrast to -4 with the normal profiles, you don't get a 'flat' curve. There is still contrast baked in.

Ironically, even WITH CineStyle you need to set the contrast and saturation sliders according to their recommendation. My guess is that those settings are simply part of the pipeline and you need to set them to the setting that corresponds to how the picture profile was developed.

CineStyle is certainly no unicorn, but it's a valid option. You can also choose to spend the time and develop something more custom to your own needs—like to JCS here on the forum.

What we DO seem to agree on, is the amount of faith we put in other people's "attempts" to create something useful. I wouldn't recommend buying any of the home grown "Canon Log" profiles out there, because most of them just rob the codec of useful code values in an attempt to wrangle the shadows and highlights into submission. And some might look good upon first inspection with their flat appearance. But it's impossible to really tell what the curves are doing since all the demos are different scenes with unknown DR.
 
I appreciate your answer and all of that sounds great on paper, but my opinion is based on real world results and you're not going to convince me that Cinestyle is worth its "scientific" breakdown.

I had a 5D Mark IV without C-Log. I experimented with Cinestyle (along with other options). Then I sent the camera to a Canon factory for them to enable C-Log on it (when it was available) and my conclusion was formed.
 
NorBro said:
C-Log on Canon's stills cameras (besides the 1DC) stinks, quite frankly, but it's still better than Cinestyle.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for other camera models, but on the Canon 1Dc, Canon Log was a whole other 'mode' that the camera entered. The lowest usable ISO was 400* and Canon used the 2 stops to pull the exposure to save highlight information (net win was 1 2/3 stop IIRC) and then 'boost' the shadows and mids in the encoding.

Canon didn't give Technicolor similar access (this was way before the 1Dc of course). I remember Technicolor griping about not being allowed to act directly on the sensordata—that they felt they got access to the signal a bit too late in the chain, but that it was still better than a normal PP.

But what Canon Log and CineStyle has in common is that they are standards that get support built into 3rd party. Film Convert has a setting for CineStyle, for example, but you won't find any of the 100+ user settings there.


*= EDIT: you could set the camera to ISO100, but even if you blew out the images, you would never reach IRE100 due to the pulled exposure.
 
Last edited:
NorBro said:
I appreciate your answer and all of that sounds great on paper, but my opinion is based on real world results and you're not going to convince me that Cinestyle is worth its "scientific" breakdown.
Click to expand...

I was utterly unimpressed with CineStyle when used on a 5DmkII and 5DmkIII. It's much better on the 1Dx mkII. Go figure. I'm guessing it has to do with the 422, high bitrate, intra frame compression.
 
Exactly right... that is why I was simply looking for the technical/transform LUT that came straight from Technicolor, and created by the same engineers who developed the Cinestyle curve in the first place. I'm not exactly working with 12-bit RAW files here, so like I said, I'll gladly take the "free trip" back to rec709 and spend what little latitude I actually have on the basic adjustments. The last thing I wanted was a baked in look or an eye-balled transform LUT to have to deal with.

And thank you again for the heads-up on where to find it!
 
Back in 2012 I hand-converted XML for CineStyle to a PP6 preset. It's a simple symmetric gamma s-curve for luminance (no color changes). Since you'll likely play with contrast in post, you can start with a simple 3 point s-curve in your NLE and tune to taste.

Folks have said matching Canon Log with a custom picture style isn't possible (including me!). Surprisingly I've been able to match a custom picture style nearly exactly on the EOS R to Canon Log: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?365435-Matching-1DX-II-with-FSCL-to-EOS-R-with-CLog
Gamma/contrast is very close, where CLog retains slightly more color in areas approaching white.

I started with what I thought wasn't really a log method, however after seeing the results and being able to use exactly the same adjustment layer on Canon Log and this custom picture style, it's definitely producing log output that's compatible with Canon Log.

I tried CineStyle and my early prototype log emulations on the 1DX II when it first came out. The problem was they messed up skin tones. So I used a completely different approach which preserves skin tones (Filmic Skin). When I started using the EOS R I was curious if I could match Canon Log performance while also allowing custom color tweaks (which isn't possible with Canon Log. Also Canon Log disables auto ISO, which I find very helpful for run & gun). Without any custom tweaks after tuning on the EOS R, the 1DX II does very well using FS-CL to match Canon Log on the EOS R in both DR and color (see link above). When I have some free time (currently back in the tech world) I'll see if I can match the 1DX II with FS-CL even closer to the EOS R in CLog. Will also give a go for the 80D, if that works, then I think I have a working solution for Canon Log on any Canon DSLR (e.g. you can match cameras and use same LUTs/post-adjustments).

NorBro- does this pass your requirements for a working CLog?
 
Unfortunately it doesn't because you're still not doing what I asked a few weeks ago.

Currently, you are "dumbing-down" C-Log to match your profile.

___

Please - if you are so inclined to do so - capture overexposed areas with both profiles.

Use the same lens, aperture, shutter and ISO - cycle through a few f/ stops - and post the footage. Even record the camera screen with another camera. One take, no cuts.

If both of them retain the same amount of DR then I'll crown you myself.

But right now, IMO, all you're essentially doing is matching by desaturating and exposing correctly (even slightly underexposing).

The first tests in any DR lab examination is to shoot bright and white areas, and this is what we need to see (even shoot those ceiling lights you have).

___

If you're talking about matching the gray and muddiness of C-Log - yes, you matched it, lol.
 
The custom profile is pretty radical... This covers white clip to black?
attachment.php


For what I shoot, this is the most difficult case, blue sky with subject in shadow (in this case also hot on one side):
attachment.php


Is there a prize for the NorBro Crowne lol?

Note that in Canon Log, Canon messes with the voltage (ISO), so ISO's not ever going to match (no big deal). Perhaps that's one reason they disabled auto ISO. For MAX DR, this will allow Canon an edge (it's not a hardware change, just software they keep 'locked'), however I'm surprised it was possible to get this close.
 
But, dude - I can match the exposure of Canon Log with a 'Neutral' profile too if I'm allowed to have one at f/2.8 and the latter at f/8 (and/or other adjustments).

That is the point...

If you're shooting those ceiling lights with C-Log at f/2.8, 1/50, ISO400 and you're overexposed just a bit, I can guarantee that once you switch to your profile, you will have a blast of white blob on your screen.

Am I not right?

___

Are you telling me they will both retain the same amount of information?

If so, I'd like to see it, please, because then I'll purchase your product.
 
Again, the picture style is pretty radical, not the same as lowering exposure and shooting low-contrast neutral. If you use any picture style, and then go into Canon Log, you'll see a major shift in exposure, so it's necessary to compensate so they match.

In those tests it's the same lens and settings: F-stop and shutter (two copies of the Canon 24-105 F4L (not the RF)). Look at the DOF in both shots. They match pretty well on the scopes- capturing very similar DR and color- do you want to see pics of the scopes or ?

FS-CL isn't currently available, still tweaking it and getting feedback- PM me if you want to test it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top