I’ve been doing some reading on the pros and cons of using Canon C-log with my C100. A lot of people seem to love it, a lot of people seem to hate it. I’m not afraid of doing color correction in post, and I’m leaning toward also picking up the “Film Convert” film emulation grading software, which seems to be making quite a few folks happy. Curious to hear about people’s experiences using C-log, any advice they might have for shooting on set with C-log, and any post-production tips that might make things easier for me. I’m using Premiere CS6 for editing. Thanks, all.
C100: to C-log or not to C-log
- Thread starter jthabel
- Start date
ReelWorksMedia
Well-known member
Personally, I only shoot in C-Log. Super easy to work with....great results.
Cuong Dinh
Active member
remsyatassi
Well-known member
In some scenarios FilmConvert can be useful to just de-log the footage and do some leveling before the project starts - you can turn the grading/grain setting off for the most part. Resolve does the same thing but FC is faster for me because I'm not fast in it.
Then you still have the highlight room and can adjust it if you need it.
But if it's going to another editor I just shoot Wide DR.
Then you still have the highlight room and can adjust it if you need it.
But if it's going to another editor I just shoot Wide DR.
Shoot C-Log but remember the C100 is an 8bit camera so you are limited somewhat by over manipulating the image. It does require more time spent grading but if you or your colourist know what your doing then you will be happy you have shot with C-Log (remembering its 8-Bit)
Otherwise shoot Wide DR. I have grown to love it and the highlight preservation is actually very good. I like to drop the Master Black a notch or two as it helps with noise.
Otherwise shoot Wide DR. I have grown to love it and the highlight preservation is actually very good. I like to drop the Master Black a notch or two as it helps with noise.
Doug_EX
Well-known member
8 bit is a problem when gradind. In my book, 256 vs 1024 (10 bit) per channel is a huge disadvantage. And 10 bit is not that much either for heavy grading.
When you guys use CLog, what other (if any) in-camera adjustments or settings have you found useful? Also, regarding Hearnia's thread above -- is C Log truly optimized for 8-bit, or can I assume that there'll also be a benefit on Prores and the likes (I have a Ninja 2).
AndreeOnline
Veteran
There's a difference between "optimized for 8 bit" and "designed with 8 bit in mind".
Canon Log was designed to perform well in 8 bit space too, but 10 bit or more is always preferable if disk space/memory card space isn't an issue. Specifically Log codecs profit from higher bit depths, since they produce flattish footage that will be pushed around in post.
For a log codec, Canon Log is actually not THAT flat. Not extreme. It's one of the reasons it works well from 8 bits up.
kylemorgan8
Member
I'm new to the CXXX world, but I really like c-log. It's easy to grade and allows you to dial in a specific "look".
Walter Hergt
Active member
I started with WideDR and had been thrilled coming from a GH4. I've since been shooting more C-Log as I'm working on my own project and the flow of color correction and then grading (and learning to) is my own time - this is opening new worlds. But I have stuck with WideDR on the couple of paid events that I've had based on being more time efficient to process, not that C-Log is hard.
As stated earlier, proper exposure is key. I've found that 8-bit holds up well when footage is properly exposed and color correction - rather than massive grading - is what's needed.
I also use a Ninja Star under some, more challenging conditions and have seen the improvement in the shadows response during cc - more detail, holds up when stretched.
Just started using NTown Production's CinemaEx -- based off C-log with lowered whites and blacks, claiming less noise and easier cc for 8-bit. To my eye, seems "half-way" between C-Log and WideDR and certainly much less shadow noise than WideDR.
Have other's spent time with NTown's profile? Comment on experiences or comparison to other profiles based off Log? I've not seen Hurlbut's profiles in action.
As stated earlier, proper exposure is key. I've found that 8-bit holds up well when footage is properly exposed and color correction - rather than massive grading - is what's needed.
I also use a Ninja Star under some, more challenging conditions and have seen the improvement in the shadows response during cc - more detail, holds up when stretched.
Just started using NTown Production's CinemaEx -- based off C-log with lowered whites and blacks, claiming less noise and easier cc for 8-bit. To my eye, seems "half-way" between C-Log and WideDR and certainly much less shadow noise than WideDR.
Have other's spent time with NTown's profile? Comment on experiences or comparison to other profiles based off Log? I've not seen Hurlbut's profiles in action.
Last edited:
kylemorgan8
Member
Is anyone using the new color finale plugin for fcx? I'm in the middle of my 7 day trial period right now, but I really like it. I purchased James Miller's LUT package and have been playing around with a bunch of different looks through color finale and their LUT utility.
Walter Hergt
Active member
I've been using Finale and think it is excellent. The color wheel responsiveness is pretty good but for me curves is everything - it's an approach I intuitively understand from Lightroom and Photoshop. Support has been very good. They are intending to add sharpening, which I dislike in FCPX.
kylemorgan8
Member
I love the curves, but their color wheel seems like a foreign concept to me. It makes simple things like exposure correction more difficult than it needs to be IMO. Keep in mind this is coming from someone who has very little coloring experience.
bill totolo
Veteran
C100 CLog:
