Brandon Freeman
Well-known member
After using V-LOG for several months in combination with an Atomos recorder, I found myself growing irritated with the limited mobility of the LED screen due to the HDMI port's location. I also continually came across instances where there were, even in 10-bit recording, slight magenta discolorations in the noise (albeit much finer and granular than seen in 8-bit internal recording), that even grading in 32-bit After Effects couldn't completely resolve. These situations weren't constant, but enough to make me question what I was really gaining with all the extra work and sacrifice of 4K (because I didn't have $1400+ for a 4K 10-bit recorder).
I told myself, "It's about highlight retention and roll-off," which was true, it was amazing when I flipped back and forth between picture profiles and saw how much more detail the V-LOG L profile retained in the highlights. But nevertheless, all this extra configuration went against the whole point of my move to DSLR/mirrorless - small and light, quick and mobile.
Then something occurred to me - we're always told to overexpose V-LOG L a bit to ensure noise isn't an issue, and of course this means the highlights in turn are pushed up a bit more. I went back to the ISO settings, and it struck me that the V-LOG L limit on the low end is ISO 400 - while with all other profiles the limit is ISO 200. A stop difference... it got me thinking, so I pointed the camera to the office hallway ceiling with a bunch of fluorescent lights, and set my exposure for V-LOG L at ISO 400, then switched to CineLike V and lowered the ISO to 200. And my suspicions proved true - the highlight roll-off and clipping was exactly the same. Effectively, V-LOG L's ISO 400 was CineLike V's ISO 200.
I played with this more, and in every instance, I could capture footage that behaved similarly if I simply kept that rule of a stop difference in exposure in mind. To protect the shadows, I did the thing everyone says not to do, and cranked up the master pedestal to +15. And honestly, at this point, I can't tell the difference between exposing to the left with this setting and exposing to the right with V-LOG L, other than being closer to my final grade in camera.
So maybe I've been duped - maybe this whole "LOG" discussion is in fact just a silly little mind game at this price point. Up the ladder a bit, with the big boys who shoot in a studio environment, I'm sure it's important, because you've got to match multiple cameras in the edit and make sure they all have the same look. But I'm shooting with ONE camera, and until that changes, I find the only advantage I thought I had with V-LOG L to be a misunderstanding of what it's really doing. It's taking a lower ISO's highlights (it seems) and is boosting up the shadows and midtones, when, ultimately, you're just going to pull those back down.
I don't regret purchasing the V-LOG L update or the Atomos Ninja Recorder - when it comes time to part with the camera, it'll add to the resale value. But I think I'm gonna stick with CineLike V, Master Pedestal at +15, Saturation at -5 (because the saturation gets overblown with lifted shadows), and Exposing To The Left.
I told myself, "It's about highlight retention and roll-off," which was true, it was amazing when I flipped back and forth between picture profiles and saw how much more detail the V-LOG L profile retained in the highlights. But nevertheless, all this extra configuration went against the whole point of my move to DSLR/mirrorless - small and light, quick and mobile.
Then something occurred to me - we're always told to overexpose V-LOG L a bit to ensure noise isn't an issue, and of course this means the highlights in turn are pushed up a bit more. I went back to the ISO settings, and it struck me that the V-LOG L limit on the low end is ISO 400 - while with all other profiles the limit is ISO 200. A stop difference... it got me thinking, so I pointed the camera to the office hallway ceiling with a bunch of fluorescent lights, and set my exposure for V-LOG L at ISO 400, then switched to CineLike V and lowered the ISO to 200. And my suspicions proved true - the highlight roll-off and clipping was exactly the same. Effectively, V-LOG L's ISO 400 was CineLike V's ISO 200.
I played with this more, and in every instance, I could capture footage that behaved similarly if I simply kept that rule of a stop difference in exposure in mind. To protect the shadows, I did the thing everyone says not to do, and cranked up the master pedestal to +15. And honestly, at this point, I can't tell the difference between exposing to the left with this setting and exposing to the right with V-LOG L, other than being closer to my final grade in camera.
So maybe I've been duped - maybe this whole "LOG" discussion is in fact just a silly little mind game at this price point. Up the ladder a bit, with the big boys who shoot in a studio environment, I'm sure it's important, because you've got to match multiple cameras in the edit and make sure they all have the same look. But I'm shooting with ONE camera, and until that changes, I find the only advantage I thought I had with V-LOG L to be a misunderstanding of what it's really doing. It's taking a lower ISO's highlights (it seems) and is boosting up the shadows and midtones, when, ultimately, you're just going to pull those back down.
I don't regret purchasing the V-LOG L update or the Atomos Ninja Recorder - when it comes time to part with the camera, it'll add to the resale value. But I think I'm gonna stick with CineLike V, Master Pedestal at +15, Saturation at -5 (because the saturation gets overblown with lifted shadows), and Exposing To The Left.
