C300: These days do you prefer C-Log2 or C-Log3?

mizzar

Active member
I used to be all about C-Log3 but I just did some tests on C-Log2 today and was super impressed with it (except the weird way that the waveform treats it??).
 
I went through a C-Log 3 phase and now I'm liking C-Log2 these days, just prefer the lower contrast and DR.
 
Also, the C-Log 2 in Cinema RAW Light is the only way to realize the 15 stops of DR on the C200 according to Canon.
 
I used to be all about C-Log3 but I just did some tests on C-Log2 today and was super impressed with it (except the weird way that the waveform treats it??).

Yeah, freaked me out too, but all your highlights are there in post. Looks like it clips everything at 80 IRE but it doesn't.
 
I think it does clip around 92 on the waveform in C-log 2. Just once you grade it, that's still more headroom in the highlights than using other gammas.
 
Last edited:
I used to be all about C-Log3 but I just did some tests on C-Log2 today and was super impressed with it (except the weird way that the waveform treats it??).

I use Clog 3 in most "normal" situations where primary color grading is expected...say a controlled studio shoot, or exterior work where contrast range is within 12-13 stops, largely because DPAF face detection works better in Clog 3 (and original clog, and any of the linear gammas) than it does in Clog 2. We use Clog 2 when it's likely we will be doing secondary corrections, for instance an interior interview with a window in the shot, as the highlight range is significantly better. To me it's all about the 12bit Cinema Gamut for this purpose as it gives us a tremendous amount of flexibility bringing say sunlit greenery into the same range as our interview lighting. Most of the noise issues with Clog2 have been dealt with in the last couple of updates (you still want to expose it on the light side).
 
Back
Top