You make a valid point. Now I feel the same can be said for production because they adopted this process in a generalized way when often it is mis used, poorly executed and in some cases just wrong. Try pulling a chroma key from a green screen shot that was in a studio with complete control and an 8 bit codec.
Of course we can sit here and say anybody that doesn't know enough about Log shouldn't use it but the reality is even seasoned DP's and Camera people have just blindly adopted it's use under the blanket, "It gives them more to work with in post."
I have been handed media that included 250 plus Luts to go with the footage on a tight turn around variety show. Guess what I used a standard Sony LUT because it was the only thing manageable in the time frame given.
So the Devil is in the details but I'd be better off with the uninformed not using Log and I still stand by the fact that if it's a Rec 709 delivery shooting Rec 709 properly is the cleanest path with the fewest headaches for everyone that has to deal with the material after it is shot. If you can't properly expose for Rec 709 well then get a light meter and improve your work. If I hadn't spent decades working with people who know how to do it right in the first place I might have a different take on this.
---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <cutandcover@...> wrote :
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 2:51 PM, bigfish@... [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:I got clarification at NAB regarding Arri LogC and they have a mode that allows setting the proper exposure so that 18% Scene grey has a data value of 400. It allowed you to see where the 400 mark was in the picture.
I have to say that if you are delivering for Rec 709 and you shoot in Rec 709 you are getting the maximum number of step/levels out of the signal. Any compression and you lose steps in detail. If the final log signal I get was still a full 700 mV then I would say okay this process is still taking advantage of the full signal range and steps of detail and then I would feel it was protecting the under and over shoots but still maintaining detail. Whether the loss of detail, where ever it is, is more problematic than over or underexposed issues is certainly a judgement call.
I like to think the feature film world and other high end productions handle the log process I lot better than I usually see it but that is not the world I live in most of the time.
---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <cutandcover@...> wrote :Doesn't it just work this way?If you get more out of your footage shot as Log, then it works.If you get less, then it doesn't.I have been in many situations where having the footage shot as Log allowed me to grade with finer control than a similar linearly shot clip. I'm inclined to say that because I understand how it works, I'm able to extract the benefit from it. There are lots of wacko theories being thrown around on this thread that make it sound like Log is worse. Those theories are wrong when Log is shot correctly. A scene lit and shot Log with a camera and codec of sufficient quality will best that same scene shot linearly for both high and low detail.If you don't think so, then don't use it. Leave it to those of us who can.On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Pat Horridge pat@... [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:I'd agree with Bourke. With an 8 bit recording SLog3 is trading mud tone sefinition for top and bottom and frankly its the mid tones that count. In 10 bit it works well IF you push tge exposure up while recording.
Much SLog content frankly doesn't use 1/3 of the available bit depth so is worse than useless.
SLog3 like many others is for many just a gimmick and a complication.
Pat Horridge
Posted by: bigfish@pacbell.net
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (26) |
No comments:
Post a Comment