This IS the Avid L2: Re: [Avid-L2] Canon log profile, wtf?

Friday, September 13, 2013

Re: [Avid-L2] Canon log profile, wtf?

Steve and others.

I understand the image is properly exposed, but i still fail to see why compressing the dynamic range in an already highly compressed 8 bit MpegII file gains me anything.

>Mars Spano: The sensor sucks at low level and high level detail

If this is the case, the conversion to a log profile should be done in the optics, not after the chip, as the damage would be done already..

Now for the sake of the argument, if the codec is bad at low and high level, you have a point.

Sadly, even with the elevated blacks, there is no detail in the dark parts, hence i don't see (literally in this case) any improvement.

Bouke

VideoToolShed
van Oldenbarneveltstraat 33
6512 AS NIJMEGEN, the Netherlands
+31 24 3553311

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve Hullfish

To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 4:52 AM

Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] Canon log profile, wtf?

But the image IS properly exposed. The RECORDING of it is just protecting as much of the data as possible. A simple LUT will get you a nice image with virtually no extra work. For speed of post, I can definitely see that you wouldn't want it, but for CONTROL in post, you certainly do. LOG doesn't mean the DP doesn't care or doesn't exposer properly. It doesn't even mean they don't decide on a look. They can deliver a LUT that has their look.

Steve

On Sep 12, 2013, at 6:52 PM, "Edit B" <bouke@editb.nl> wrote:

Mark,

Please, re-read. I'm talking about the former.

And even if i miss the point, please educate me, why does ANY remapping / preserving could help me getting more out of a squished image than a properly exposed / balanced image....

The 'otherwise no one' quote is meaningless to me. Zillions of people are doing stuff that don't make sense at all.

I'm not one of them, i am:

Bouke

VideoToolShed
van Oldenbarneveltstraat 33
6512 AS NIJMEGEN, the Netherlands
+31 24 3553311

----- Original Message -----

From: Mark Spano

To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 1:12 AM

Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] Canon log profile, wtf?

I wonder if you are joking. If not, I'm surprised. Are you talking about "why should anyone shoot in Log with a C300?" or "why should anyone shoot in Log?" - if it's the former, you may have a point. If it's the latter, I can vouch for many camera systems that the resulting log media has benefitted from gaming the light into the sensor's money zone. The lower and upper ranges of the light get squished going in, the sensor picks it up, then you stretch it back out with a LUT or a correction so you can preserve highlight and shadow detail. It works, otherwise no one would use it.

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Edit B <bouke@editb.nl> wrote:

Ok, so i could (re) import while compensating for the original ' makes no sense to me' settings.

But that doesn't answer my question...

(I repeat, is there ANY sense in shooting this way?)

Bouke

VideoToolShed
van Oldenbarneveltstraat 33
6512 AS NIJMEGEN, the Netherlands
+31 24 3553311

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve Hullfish

To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 12:17 AM

Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] Canon log profile, wtf?

I've got one in mine: Canon C-log to REC 709.

On Sep 12, 2013, at 5:07 PM, owen@thenowcorporation.com wrote:

mc 7, i thought i saw a lut for canon in the source settings window, no?

Owen's iphone

On Sep 12, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "Edit B" <bouke@editb.nl> wrote:

Got some material (well, a feature doc worth of) Canon C300 material, shot
in LogC (?)
Now, can anyone explain to me why this way of shooting is actually better in
any other case than ' I haven't got the faintest idea where this is going'
scenario?

I mean, it is still 8 bit, nothing raw like, blacks are lifted (but without
detail, so why even bother?), no usable LUT's (or i am truely misinformed,
please let it be so),
so i find myself just yanking setup / gamma / curves to remap a few pixel
colors that could have been in 'about' the right spot anyways on a normal
video cam approach.

Again, granted, this might be good if the shooter has no clue at all, but
c'mon, how often is that the case where you bring a cam like this? Why not
shoot regular and define a look in the cam?
I still can do a lot on properly white balanced / exposed material, and in
most cases the in-cam defined look will be close, so the end result after CC
will be better than after grading these images.

Or, what am i missing?

(Note to self, do NOT, i repeat, do NOT start a discussion about putting a
light (or perhaps three...) on the scene will improve things above shooting
in a custom 'make it pretty in CC' mode...)

Bouke

VideoToolShed
van Oldenbarneveltstraat 33
6512 AS NIJMEGEN, the Netherlands
+31 24 3553311