C300: WDR for a C-logger

J

Jon Roemer

Well-known member
I almost always do my own editing so c-log on the C300 has been permanently attached to my workflow.

I have a multi-day shoot next week and the client does not want a flat look. So, I will most likely use WDR. Whenever I have used C-log it's been in Cinema Locked Mode. Next week's shoot will be inside, primarily lit by Litepanels - 1x1's, Sola ENG's, and a Sola 4. There might be a tungsten practical or two thrown in via on set lamps. All said, I'll have good control over the lighting.

My question is - from searching around online it seems that the WDR profile has sharpening set higher than Cinema Locked. What would I need to set the sharpening to within WDR to match the feel of the sharpening in Cinema Locked mode?

Or if I poke around within copies of Cinema mode and WDR it'll be abundantly obvious?!

Thanks....
 
I didn't pull out my cameras yet but looking at the Canon's menu simulator and the factory defaults, the sharpness setting for WDR is already lower than the one for Cinema Locked. Them other the obvious - Gamma (Canon Log for Cinema & Wide DR for WDR), there is only one other setting that is different.

Default -

Log/Cinema: Sharpness = 0; WDR: Sharpness = -10.

Log/Cinema: Other Functions/Setup Level = 0; WDR: Other Functions/Setup Level = +16.
 
Jon Roemer said:
Or if I poke around within copies of Cinema mode and WDR it'll be abundantly obvious?!
Click to expand...

Up front: I'm a C100 owner, only 'some time' C300 user. But with that in mind, the C100 default WDR has a default sharpness of -2. The default sharpness of C-Log is -10 - basically, 'off'.

I love both C-Log and WDR, and have simple variants of WDR at -10 (for Chromakey), -6 (for general use) and -2 for times when I really want to nail the focus in difficult low contrast situations.
 
I never quite understood the point of Cinema Locked; do people really accidentally change picture profile settings? Locking it takes away your ability to adjust the white balance shift (among other settings), which is an important feature I use constantly (for example, to take the green out of an image). CP9 is Canon Log and you can set it to not be locked or protected so then you can adjust other settings.

I use Wide-DR on the C100 and find C-log to have too much noise after grading back to a normal image unless you're looking to have your final image be flat. I keep sharpness at the default -2 in Wide DR because when I have tried adding post sharpening to Canon-Log at -10, the image falls apart faster and it doesn't sharpen as well as Wide DR at -2 in my experience (which I know is contrary to people like Philip Bloom who are always against in-camera sharpness, but those people are often going for the softer film look while I aim for the ultra sharp corporate look). I haven't tried Wide DR at -10, just Canon-Log. I would guess in terms of sharpness the two profiles would react similarly to adding post-sharpening.

The thing to keep in mind is that these cameras are 8 bit cameras shooting to compressed codecs, so generally speaking the closer you can get the image in-camera to look like the final desired image the less you'll have to make adjustments in post which will stress the codec and result in artifacting, noise, etc.
 
Thanks Eric and Matt. I'm going to run some tests prior to the project but it sounds like a sharpness setting in the -5 to -10 range will be best. I'm aiming for a similar look, in terms of sharpness, to what I am used to with c-log which is plenty sharp.

Eric - I've always shot in Cinema Locked mode but I tend to do custom white balances so that takes care of any green/magenta shift. Also, since I'm shooting log and grading I can tweak the image further in post. It usually holds up very well doing that, at least with the 50 Mb/s of the C300.
 
I find the noise with WDR on the C300 to be quite horrible. If i 'HAVE' to use WDR on a C300 i will lower sharpness to -10. Always do a BB and be careful raising your ISO too far.

My C100 with a Ninja2 (Prores HQ) side by side with a C300 has significant less noise in WDR.....and I can really push those Prores files in post and use a subtle amount of 'Neat' Noise' noise removal if required.

Jon have you tried Cowpunks Profiles?
 
Jon I just looked at your Vimeo & Blog - great work !!!!!!! Id love to hear about how u find WDR on the C300 :)
 
BeeHop - thanks! Much appreciated, both the info and the feedback. :)

I always do a BB but I also have always been pretty liberal with my ISO use - I've done up to 20,000 on personal projects and probably up to ~12,800 on client jobs. I don't suspect I'll need to go above 3200 on this job but we'll see....

I've read few saying that WDR can get noisy so I'll be on the lookout for that. Just as many seem to say it is fine.

I used Cowpunk/Brian's profiles once in 2013, one of the few other times I wasn't shooting c-log. In that particular case what I was shooting didn't render quite the way I would have liked (university commencement gowns) but it could have been an oddity of the manmade fabric. I will probably have his profile on hand as another option (if it's still current with the WDR enabled firmware. I'll take a look back at the sticky thread about it.) I was under the impression that WDR might be a bit more neutral in its rendering (?)

We are doing a pre-light day so I will have time to review a number of Custom Picture options on set and with the client pick the best one.

I'll run some tests tomorrow in my studio to get everything prepped.
 
Last edited:
Something to note that I've found is that Wide DR is about a stop and a half brighter than C-Log. I figure there is some kind of gain applied in Wide DR outside of the regular ISO settings. For example, looking at my waveform, Canon Log at ISO 5000 is about the same exposure as Wide DR at ISO 2000. So while it may falsely seem like Canon Log is a lot better in low light since it will stay clean at higher ISOs (such as 6400, 12,800, etc.), in terms of actual exposure that isn't necessarily the case and I haven't found much difference in low light capabilities from C-Log vs Wide DR.

That's one reason I often find it funny that people will tout a camera as "clean up to X ISO setting," yet the cleanness of the ISO is heavily subjective to different profile settings and cameras. In Wide DR I generally don't like to go past ISO 3200, perhaps 6400 at the highest, while in C-Log I'll go up to 12,800 or even 20,000 sometimes.


If Cowpunk/Brian's profile is the Wide PF one, I tried that, and while it did get colors in-camera closer to natural, I also found the image fell apart a lot more with grading to the point I didn't want to use it again.
 
Eric - finding similar, that with WDR up to 3200 is fine, 6400 staring to show some noise but acceptable, 12,800 is getting clumpy. This is without using any noise reduction.

Sharpness settings in -10 to -6 seem to work well for me. -2 is starting to look crunchy. Matt - you were right about -2 being the default sharpness with WDR.

Beehop - I'm not seeing what I would call horrible noise until it's upwards of about 12,800. 6400 is noisy but it's not colored or clumpy like it is at 12,800.

If I want to bring the black point on WDR down a bit (it may be too flat for the project), is it simply a matter of lowering the Black Master Pedestal? It appears to be the case but I don't know if I'm missing something. For example, it seems like -3 on the Black Master Pedestal puts a touch of snap back into WDR, enough to make a face feel natural and not flat, with the black points just barely above 0 IRE (though I realize it will depend upon the scene being filmed and how it is lit.)
 
Last edited:
I just can't go back to the C300's MPEG-2 50Mbp after using the C100 to Ninja2 ProRes HQ, which is soooo robust, less noisy and holds up so well to any heavy grading.
 
BeeHop said:
I just can't go back to the C300's MPEG-2 50Mbp after using the C100 to Ninja2 ProRes HQ, which is soooo robust, less noisy and holds up so well to any heavy grading.
Click to expand...

I'll have to try the C300 going to an external recorder to explore the difference. I shot a job where it was my C300 as the b-cam and a C100 + Ninja as the A cam. It all cut together nicely, both cameras set to the same custom Camera Profile, but I didn't see the other footage to be able compare noise or other qualities.
 
I find at higher ISO's the Prores HQ holds up much better than C300's Mpeg-2 GOP structure. But then again only some shots the difference between 50 Mbps and 100+ Mbps can be obvious.

Maybe i've just had a bad experience with a faulty C300 :(
 
To follow up on my experience with Wide DR - all went well. The color looked stunning out of the gate - really happy with that! Some footage I would describe as a bit noisier in the shadows than I expected but I don't have a side by side vs. c-log or cine for comparison. So, the jury is still out on whether it was more noticeable or not.

I had one snafu and that was tied to viewing footage within FCP X on my rMBP. When I ran tests prior to the assignment I ran them on my 27" iMac. Nothing was out of the norm when I did that, viewing the footage within FCP X via the iMac, on the camera monitors, etc. On set I was quite anal about doing black balances and we had two 7" Marshall monitors to check the footage on a larger display and in 1:1 mode (potential fabric issues, etc.) All looked good.

That was until I downloaded the footage onto my rMBP during lunch on the first day... It looked horrible. Over-sharpned, aliasing, moire, you name it. I was shocked. Totally threw me for a loop. Turned out - there must be a bug in how FCPX renders the MXF footage on the rMBP (MXF rewrapped as MOV which FCP X does if you choose not to transcode) (OS 10.9.5, late 2013 rMBP w/ i7 16 GB ram, FCPX 10.1.3.) I figured this out later that evening. The same footage rendered out of FCPX as a Pro Res Master File looked fine, the actual footage (MXF rewraps) when viewed within QT looked fine, and the same footage now viewed back on my studio iMac looks fine.

I sent a bug report to Apple on this.

All said, I would definitely use Wide DR again but I would want to run a few more tests first to be more confident of actual noise levels vs. other picture styles. It has made me wonder if the new 5K retina iMac could have potential issues like I saw with the rMBP.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I never quite understood the point of Cinema Locked; do people really accidentally change picture profile settings? Locking it takes away your ability to adjust the white balance shift (among other settings), which is an important feature I use constantly (for example, to take the green out of an image). CP9 is Canon Log and you can set it to not be locked or protected so then you can adjust other settings.

I use Wide-DR on the C100 and find C-log to have too much noise after grading back to a normal image unless you're looking to have your final image be flat. I keep sharpness at the default -2 in Wide DR because when I have tried adding post sharpening to Canon-Log at -10, the image falls apart faster and it doesn't sharpen as well as Wide DR at -2 in my experience (which I know is contrary to people like Philip Bloom who are always against in-camera sharpness, but those people are often going for the softer film look while I aim for the ultra sharp corporate look). I haven't tried Wide DR at -10, just Canon-Log. I would guess in terms of sharpness the two profiles would react similarly to adding post-sharpening.

The thing to keep in mind is that these cameras are 8 bit cameras shooting to compressed codecs, so generally speaking the closer you can get the image in-camera to look like the final desired image the less you'll have to make adjustments in post which will stress the codec and result in artifacting, noise, etc.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that post, i always shoot C-Log, but i am having some issues lately with apparently the limitations of the 8-bit codec (See post below) and i will test WDR instead of C-Log with a shoot tomorrow.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?330137-Banding-issues-in-footage-please-help
 
Jon Roemer said:
That was until I downloaded the footage onto my rMBP during lunch on the first day... It looked horrible. Over-sharpned, aliasing, moire, you name it. I was shocked. Totally threw me for a loop. Turned out - there must be a bug in how FCPX renders the MXF footage on the rMBP (MXF rewrapped as MOV which FCP X does if you choose not to transcode) (OS 10.9.5, late 2013 rMBP w/ i7 16 GB ram, FCPX 10.1.3.) I figured this out later that evening. The same footage rendered out of FCPX as a Pro Res Master File looked fine, the actual footage (MXF rewraps) when viewed within QT looked fine, and the same footage now viewed back on my studio iMac looks fine.
Click to expand...

Figured out the problem here with the help of @chrisfenwick of FCPX Grill - FCPX on my rMBP was not set to Better Quality in the Viewer, it was set to Better Performance... Lesson learned! My iMac was set to Better Quality (that's why the problem was not visible there.)

So, if you are viewing Canon C300 MXF footage in FCPX make sure the Viewer is set to Better Quality otherwise... you will be frightened by the results.

This was unoptimized/non-transcoded footage (FCPX rewraps it upon import from MXF to MOV) - I don't know if the same problem exists with optimized/transcoded footage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top