C100: WideDR versus CLog

J

jthabel

Well-known member
Thought I'd renew the old WideDR versus CLog discussion.

I'm specifically interested in this from a grading aspect. I have a client who has used a C100 in WideDr almost exclusively and loves the look of it. I've personally only shot in CLog, as I always tend to do a fair amount of (mostly light) grading in post. I use Magic Bullet Looks for said grading, sticking almost exclusively with my three-way color corrector. I also sparingly use Magic Bullets Denoiser2.

Anyway, said client has hired me to shoot a dramatic short and he wants to use WideDr instead of CLog. There'll be a fair amount of grading in post. Just how much noise can I expect with my end product if we go this route? How many stops can I expect to adjust things before the image becomes noticeably bad? Or is it even a huge concern at all? * We'll be using the ProRes files from my Ninja Blade, not the internal AVCHD.
 
I don't use the C100 often, but my experience with the c300/mkii/C500 is to nail exposure, don't push the exposure in post. I'm a big fan of film convert film grain and I just downloaded the Lutify Pro LUT pack which is looking great with mk2 footage.
 
I mostly use C300 and always in C-log. I prefer the c-log to WideDR as it gives me more flexibility and less noise. Canon came out with WideDR for projects that don't have time and/or budget for grading. Since the short is to be graded, there is no reason to shoot in WideDR. The final looks will be in the post. Why to limit it from the beginning? You would want a consistent look across the film. So better to shoot in c-log.

Suggestion in the previous post by Carlos regarding a LUT may be a solution. Also you may take some reference shots in WideDR before shooting in c-log, so that later the client can know if he insists for a comparison. Clients can be unreasonable at times. :)

All the best!
 
After 2 years with the C100 shooting only WideDR, I'm starting to shoot in C-Log. I've had mixed results some good and some bad. When I apply a standard LUT in Color Finale from c-log to rec 709 it really crushes the blacks. I'm new to this, but I do basic color correction then apply the lut and the blacks are crushed. I can then correct the the crushed blacks again after the lut but this seems to miss the point. Perhaps this is just one example of a free lut included in Color Finale, but the way I understand it is applying the lut should standardize the c-log?
 
I would figure out the workflow with whoever is going to do the grading. If YOU'RE doing the grading, then you need to ask the client if you can use C-log, since that's what you're most comfortable with.

But if the guy knows enough about the C100 to ask that you use a specific profile, chances are he know's what he wants.

If you're going to use Wide Dr, I would shoot some noise tests at various ISO's in various environments, and decide what you're comfortable with. In my experience, Wide DR is one of the worst profiles for noise in high ISO.

If I'm shooting a C100 project and NOT using C-log, I will use Wide DR for the lower ISOs, and then I switch to a Cine 1 profile for higher ISO. Cine 1 gamma and Cine 1 color matrix, sharpness at -10, and noise reduction set to 2 or 3.

I go back on forth on the value of C-log on the C100 as it is an 8-bit codec. I agree with Canon that it is usually "the right 8 bits" for log, but sometimes I feel like when using C-log when you don't need to, there is more of a chance of the 8-bit nature of the codec to be apparent. Wide DR definitely gives a nice filmic look with much less aggressive grading required.

But above all, do you own tests and draw your own conclusions.
 
Michael Thames said:
After 2 years with the C100 shooting only WideDR, I'm starting to shoot in C-Log. I've had mixed results some good and some bad. When I apply a standard LUT in Color Finale from c-log to rec 709 it really crushes the blacks. I'm new to this, but I do basic color correction then apply the lut and the blacks are crushed. I can then correct the the crushed blacks again after the lut but this seems to miss the point. Perhaps this is just one example of a free lut included in Color Finale, but the way I understand it is applying the lut should standardize the c-log?
Click to expand...
depends on the lut and how well balance is the shot before applying it.
 
Michael Thames said:
I do the basic luma correction first on the waveform. The blacks down to zero. Perhaps in C-log the blacks should be up more?
Click to expand...

If you put a lut that is suppose to ''legalize'' your video from log to 709, then you shouldn't bring your blacks down to zero because the lut is doing just that. Question, why are you using the lut if you already color correct your shots?
 
That is why I don't use luts. I color correct with the waveform and vertoscope and calibrated monitor.
 
Doug_EX said:
If you put a lut that is suppose to ''legalize'' your video from log to 709, then you shouldn't bring your blacks down to zero because the lut is doing just that. Question, why are you using the lut if you already color correct your shots?
Click to expand...

OK I get it now. The C-log to rec 709 is the color correction as long as the exposure is correct. Then other LUTs are for color grading. I've been using "Film Convert" but find LUTs to be different, I guess they are not the same. Thanks for the clarification.
 
jthabel said:
Thought I'd renew the old WideDR versus CLog discussion.

I'm specifically interested in this from a grading aspect. I have a client who has used a C100 in WideDr almost exclusively and loves the look of it. I've personally only shot in CLog, as I always tend to do a fair amount of (mostly light) grading in post. I use Magic Bullet Looks for said grading, sticking almost exclusively with my three-way color corrector. I also sparingly use Magic Bullets Denoiser2.

Anyway, said client has hired me to shoot a dramatic short and he wants to use WideDr instead of CLog. There'll be a fair amount of grading in post. Just how much noise can I expect with my end product if we go this route? How many stops can I expect to adjust things before the image becomes noticeably bad? Or is it even a huge concern at all? * We'll be using the ProRes files from my Ninja Blade, not the internal AVCHD.
Click to expand...

I've shot a lot of WDR and C-log on the C300. Like both and tend to do WDR if I am handing off to a client. C-log if I am doing the post.

WDR is prone to more noise but run some tests at different ISOs in WDR along with varying the internal noise reduction (I assume you can do this on C100? you can on the C300.) Do a black balance between each test. Then make presets in the camera profiles for WDR at certain ISOs each with a needed amount of internal NR. e.g. 850, 1600, 3200.

WDR in general looks pretty great right out of the camera. Only negatives, other than needing to correct a bit for noise, is that I have found in certain situations it can be prone to moire and aliasing where Clog is not. I have not had it happen on a people/interview type shoot but I have seen it when filming architecture and using the 24 TSE II and the 17 TSE lenses.
 
c-log has zero sharpening as default so you may be able to eliminate the moire and aliasing in wdr mode by reducing sharpening
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top