F55: Match C100 to F55

G

Gizmosgadget

Active member
Hello all.

I have a shoot coming up next weekend where I'll need to match a C100 to my F55. I was thinking of shooting Log with both cameras to bypass most of the internal processing in each camera and then match in post. I'm just not sure how much work this will take on the part of the colorist. Is there an easier/better way to match the cameras? I would imagine the colorist will still need to do some work to match them.

Thank you.


Craig
 
I don't think there's much you can or should do in-camera to try to match them. Just shoot Log like you said and do it in color-grading. Shooting a color chart might help with reference as well.
 
David Kudell said:
I don't think there's much you can or should do in-camera to try to match them. Just shoot Log like you said and do it in color-grading. Shooting a color chart might help with reference as well.
Click to expand...

Yep. A friend of mine used to do that on multi-cam shoots, even going back to the Betacam days.
 
I've always wanted to try making up a LUT in LUT Calc to get the F55 closer to the C100. It would be interesting to try though I'm not guaranteeing it would work.
if you have both cameras available, I would start by photographing the same scene with a test chart with both cameras and then pull stills from a screen grab. Pull the F55 still into LUT Calc, apply a gamma and gamut for the Canon and then see how they match . Might need some color correction also. I've always intended to try this with the C300.
If it gets close you can try shooting the F55 with the burned in LUT and see if it gets you close. You would still be using a low- con Log type gamma so any loss should be minor. Or you could just save it for post.
Maybe its just a nutty idea but I'm going to try it one of these days when I'm forced into that situation again.
Lenny
 
AFAIK.. the so called LOG of the C100/300.. due to the 8 bit constraints .. is not a "real" log gamma curve.. and much closer to the Hypergamma curves of the Sony.. . the newer C Log2 (I think thats what it is) in the C300II is like Slog and Arri LogC.. basically the old Kodak Cineon curve..
 
Donny 123 said:
AFAIK.. the so called LOG of the C100/300.. due to the 8 bit constraints .. is not a "real" log gamma curve.. and much closer to the Hypergamma curves of the Sony.. . the newer C Log2 (I think thats what it is) in the C300II is like Slog and Arri LogC.. basically the old Kodak Cineon curve..
Click to expand...

C Log is not a million miles away from S Log but with raised blacks and slightly more contrast.

It would be easier to match the F55 with the C100. You could even build a LUT in LUTCalc that would get you very close to the overly warm look of the Canon.
 
Nirv said:
C Log is not a million miles away from S Log but with raised blacks and slightly more contrast.



Really.. . just looking at the curve its not close.. more of an s shape .. looks like a hyper gamma curve.. the problem was the 8 bit recording.. thats why they came with the new one CLog2.. in the C300II.. thats very similar to Slog.. but the C300 isnt close ?
Click to expand...
 
Donny 123 said:
Nirv said:
C Log is not a million miles away from S Log but with raised blacks and slightly more contrast.



Really.. . just looking at the curve its not close.. more of an s shape .. looks like a hyper gamma curve.. the problem was the 8 bit recording.. thats why they came with the new one CLog2.. in the C300II.. thats very similar to Slog.. but the C300 isnt close ?
Click to expand...

I'm comparing S Log and C Log in LUTCalc and they are exactly as I described.

Untitled.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Cant upload the file I want to.. it shows the fairly big difference.. just by looking at them on a monitor you can see it.. the Slog is alot more washed out than Clog from the C300 Mark 1.. the Clog is no where near as lacking in contrast really looks like HG7 or 8.. the DR of Clog is also about 11 compared to 14 of Slog.. I dont think Canon ever tried to hide this.. and they have now with the Mark11 come out with a "real" log curve .. as they have 10 bit now..
 
Last edited:
Donny 123 said:
Cant upload the file I want to.. it shows the fairly big difference.. just by looking at them on a monitor you can see it.. the Slog is alot more washed out than Clog from the C300 Mark 1.. the Clog is no where near as lacking in contrast really looks like HG7 or 8.. the DR of Clog is also about 11 compared to 14 of Slog.. I dont think Canon ever tried to hide this.. and they have now with the Mark11 come out with a "real" log curve .. as they have 10 bit now..
Click to expand...

You can see from the graph I posted that Clog would be more contrasty which is what I said several posts ago. You claimed C Log was S shaped and looked like Hypergammas, it does not. C Log is a tweak of the midtones away from S Log ergo not a million miles away.

Both S Log and C Log are halfway houses both are contrasty enough to be seen on a VF without LUTs and capture a reasonable amount of DR i.e more than rec 709.
 
"Anyway, back to the Canon C300. From what I can tell, C-Log is an extension of the cinegamma type of gamma curve. It appears to have more in common with cinegammas than true S-log. It looks like the compression starts at around 60% and that there is a little more gain at the bottom of the curve to lift shadows a little. This earlier start to the compression will allow for a greater dynamic range but will mean fewer bits of data for skin tones etc. The raised lower end gain means you can afford to underexpose more if you need to. As the curve is not a full log curve it will look a lot more agreeable than S-Log on an uncorrected monitor, especially as the crucial mid tone area is largely unaffected by strong compression and thus a large gamma miss-match."
 
Last edited:
Gizmosgadget said:
Hi Ben.

I've never shot charts before. Can you describe the best way to shoot them?

Cheers.
Click to expand...

To be honest there's a ton of guides all over youtube, but the short version is to place the chart straight on to the camera, positioned within the lighting of the scene where you'd be filming. Now shoot that with each camera for a bit.
 
Nirv said:
Dunning-Kruger...
Click to expand...

You can see from the chart I attached before that C Log definitely has a shoulder compared to Slog3 there its a straight line above grey.. i.e. a LOG curve.. thats the whole meaning of LOG ..no?.. C Log is way closer to hyper gamma 7/8 than Slog3..

Dont put yourself down.. you,ll get the hang of it.. just need to study a bit more.. seem your work its that demanding anyway.. have a nice cup of tea ..
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top