C100: Log vs. Baked In 8 bit

M

MichaelA

Well-known member
Hi all,

Looking for some objective reasoning! C100 mk2. Been playing with Canon's Log vs. baked in picture profiles. I am arriving at a conclusion that to me may not make much sense so I wanted to see what the consensus is or if I'm totally off track with my reasoning. I've been experimenting with Canon's Log (Cinema Locked) vs. EOS Standard picture profiles. Both internally recorded. (Let's leave out an external recorder for a minute.) I am slowly arriving at the conclusion that the baked in profile, for the majority of the time, actually produces a better image and color rendition that can be achieved in log! Hear me out for a minute... My theory is that 8 bit log files just don't have that much latitude to be messed with. Try and push them a bit and you can end up with banding and artifacts that just don't seem to be apparent with the baked in look. Now going to 10 bit external is probably a game changer, but since I have to shoot most of my stuff "correspondents style" I have to use a minimal amount of deployed equipment so an external recorder is out for the moment. Anyway, going back to internally recorded stuff, what has been your observations on baked in vs. log? For me, it seem like I can spend a lot of time working with a log file just to get it back around where the baked in is already. A bit of a wasted effort on the whole, unless there are peculiarities of the shoot whereby log would clearly be a benefit (mixed shadows). In questioning the benefit to shooting in log at 8 bit I feel like the guy who is saying "the emperor has no clothes"! I mean, log is supposed to be better, right??? So I kind of feel like a heretic in saying that for internal recording it's hard to beat the baked in profiles sometimes. Yeah, log has it's place, but it seems like using it as a "go to" is more of a pain and compromise than it could be worth. Now with an external recorder it's a different ball game, yeah, you CAN utilize it to it's full extent if your capturing 10 bit. But NOT being able to use one all the time and having to rely on internal only recording is leading me to the conclusion that it just isn't worth the effort 95% of the time. Whats been your experience???
 
Your only real misconception in that statement is that the C100 outputs a 10bit external signal. It is 8 bit.

I only shoot c-log under duress when a client ask for it, or when I have absolutely no idea what I might be shooting run and gun style and the contrast is a problem.
 
I stand corrected! I also shoot with a DVX200 which does output 10 bit, thus a bit of confusion on my part....
 
hey michael, what is your personal opinion on the dvx200 color science vs C100 color science? what seems more pleasing to you?

have you tried the WDR profile on the C100? i think that's a nicer compromise than shooting log right off the bat, plus if you don't mess around with grading too much, i think WDR is acceptable. Baked in look does save you time overall, and yes i tend to agree with 8 bits the best you can do is just a light color pass and not a full on grading!
 
Both cameras do their color pretty good.

I was expecting the C100 mk2 to be closer to a Canon DSLR. Even on it's EOS standard setting it's close but I was surprised as I was expecting a better match. Not a deal breaker. Can be "tweaked" and it's about there now. I was expecting the DVX color to be closer to a GH4 DSLR. At first, not even close! Shortly thereafter a scene file was published that is pretty dead-on. All things being equal (they never are...) I generally prefer Canon's out-of-the-box color on their DSLR's. It's what I'm used to and generally my "default".

The DVX is a different beast, and perhaps a bit more finicky. Using a scene profile (4) that more closely matches the GH4 DSLR with sharpening and noise reduction reduced actually give a nice color up to around ISO 4K. It's really at its best when the scene is lit well. It's not a low light camera. It took a long time for me to get confident with the DVX, and more time messing with scene files and settings to arrive at a color palate that I like. Having gotten that sorted, it really is a pretty kick-ass camera!

The two actually complement each other well. I use the DVX for well lit and outdoors type stuff, and the C100 for low light. If staged correctly the minor differences in color can be "masked". Like an interview shoot where one camera may be set back and wide angle with the other bring a close up. When cutting between the two if placed right you'll never notice the color differences. If not placed right... well... then you do!
Also, I'm a big fan of FilmConvert. Using their stuff I can get a pretty good match between cameras and understand they are working on a program to specifically do just that.

I messed with the WDR in the C100... wasn't too impressed. It's like its trying to be a LOG but not quite and a bit more tweaking in post is needed to bring up sharpness and saturation. Heck, might as well just shoot LOG in the first place!

I just got the C100 and am still learning it. Planning on taking both it and the DVX out for some side by side tests. I think for how I shoot they will be a good pairing...
 
Last edited:
I would second using WIDE DR over EOS standard. This sort of thing is obviously very subjective, but I'm a little surprised anyone in this day and age finds EOS STANDARD a pleasing look. WIDE DR looks very good, maybe even filmic, right out of the box, and I've delivered many a project with a stock WIDE DR image (with sharpness dialed down in camera).

I've had too many incidents of banding with c-log on the C100 (both internally and in external 10-bit recordings). The only time I lean towards c-log on the C100 now is if I want deep blacks, like a talking head on a black background. I'm not a very good colorist, so I have a hard time getting those nice deep blacks without shooting log and using a LUT.
 
I use EOS Standard as a reference only, for test shots, and tweak from there so I have a "default" to compare to...
 
drummondb said:
I would second using WIDE DR over EOS standard. This sort of thing is obviously very subjective, but I'm a little surprised anyone in this day and age finds EOS STANDARD a pleasing look. WIDE DR looks very good, maybe even filmic, right out of the box, and I've delivered many a project with a stock WIDE DR image (with sharpness dialed down in camera).

I've had too many incidents of banding with c-log on the C100 (both internally and in external 10-bit recordings). The only time I lean towards c-log on the C100 now is if I want deep blacks, like a talking head on a black background. I'm not a very good colorist, so I have a hard time getting those nice deep blacks without shooting log and using a LUT.
Click to expand...

probably just a typo! but the c100 outputs only 8bit 4:2:2 not 10bit even when recorded with a 10bit recorder.

I agree that wide dr on the c100 is the safest method to get more DR in 8bit codec.
 
My only thought on the Wide DR is that it doesn't quite hold up in the blacks as well as C Log. C Log has some noise reduction baked in that makes the darks more pleasing if you don't decide to crush them. Wide DR can fool you into thinking that you have more useable range in the blacks than you actually do. My preferred profile is a custom profile using Wide DR as the basis, +3 NR, +8 on the Saturation or color gain, -5 on the blacks, and press to 100% for the superwhites.
 
avian said:
probably just a typo! but the c100 outputs only 8bit 4:2:2 not 10bit even when recorded with a 10bit recorder.

I agree that wide dr on the c100 is the safest method to get more DR in 8bit codec.
Click to expand...

No, not a typo. I meant I've seen banding in the same shot, recorded internally as well as externally to a Ninja Blade set to DNxHD 220x (which is 10-bit). I know common wisdom is that the C100 outputs 8-bit 422 via HDMI, but there is (fairly educated) debate about that: http://ntown.at/2014/02/05/canon-c100-ninja2-10-bit-workflow/
 
I suggest trying Logarist with Canon Log footage from your C100mk2. I did tests and got pleasing color this way. I think you'll find it beats Wide DR. Canon Log is an odd color space that really needs special treatment to get the right colors.

Incidentally, Wide DR has the same highlight range as Canon Log. So neither really has more exposure latitude than the other.
 
drummondb said:
No, not a typo. I meant I've seen banding in the same shot, recorded internally as well as externally to a Ninja Blade set to DNxHD 220x (which is 10-bit). I know common wisdom is that the C100 outputs 8-bit 422 via HDMI, but there is (fairly educated) debate about that: http://ntown.at/2014/02/05/canon-c100-ninja2-10-bit-workflow/
Click to expand...


I think I would trust Canon engineers over someone that's doing a random test at home. On Canon website they specifically say it's 8 bit over hdmi. I'm pretty sure Canon is correct. But, hey, could be a typo on their page, albeit I doubt it.

http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2014/eos_c100mkii_tenThings.shtml
 
OP. I've always liked the grain that the standard eos profile provide. It always look filmic (16mm film) to me. It's just too saturated and doesn't hold any information in the highlights. But I second what ppl are saying about wdr too. It's like a combination of the standard profile and c log mixed. Neither is bad for quick turn around projects. I personally prefer log when I'm shooting personal projects. I like the desaturated muted look.
 
All I know is that my Pix-E recorder only sees 8-bit coming out of the HDMI port on the C100. Maybe the Pix-E is confused or is missing the extra couple of bits being sent, but it seems to do fine with recognizing 10bit from my C300 II.
 
I'm not saying the HDMI output of C100 mk1 is 10 bit. I just mentioned it has been questioned by people smarter than me who have done tests and shared the results.

Whatever the output, I am apparently very talented at causing banding when shooting c-log on the C100, and I've seen it on the same shot, recorded internally and externally in a 10-bit recording (with the knowledge that the 10-bit recording is just 8-bit in a 10-bit container, according to Canon). I'm not "pushing" this footage at all, other than simply dropping on an official LUT. This may be connected to my love of vintage diffusion filters which bloom the highlights. It may be the perfect storm to "break" c-log on the C100.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top