C100 Mark II misc. questions

[User]

using 100% of the waveform in log exposure is an emergency trick to use for reducing noise, not for everyday exposure. It's a bad practice that's spreading because most don't read how and why Log does what it does.

JG, do I understand you correctly that folks are 'extending' or somehow 'stretching' the C-log beyond it's more 'narrow' scope - as Inazuma has stated he has done to get better colour and blacks? And if so, can you please explain in simple terms how and why folks are using this 'emergency trick' for reducing noise? Then your insight will make greater sense.

[Inazuma]

Thanks for the info JG. I suppose I just need to experiment more really. I noticed that Wide DR clips highlights sooner but it raises shadows more than CLog, which means I can drop exposure. 

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

 

If in doubt expose Log with view assist. 

As mentioned, using 100% of the waveform in log exposure is an emergency trick to use for reducing noise, not for everyday exposure. It's a bad practice that's spreading because most don't read how and why Log does what it does.

its not how it's designed to used. It forces mid tones into the upper bend of the log curve.

you don't want your midtones squished into the part that's only designed for extending highlight range, especially in an 8-bit codec.

youre fine going a bit over if you like, but banging it over by a bunch of stops every shot  is wasting the point of using log in the first place. Just use view assist if in doubt.

This in theory is a possibility and on paper it's true, but in practise, in another old thread, we tried seeing any visual disadvantage from placing the midtones higher and it never showed up, only better results including skin that's squished into the top and brought back not just the shadows. It also gives you the most dynamic range of the camera as you get to least noisy shadows and most highlight information. 

The only place I wouldn't love to ETTR, is for example exposing a polar bear on white snow, and just have a narrow 0.5mm line stuck to the waveform top, stretching that to get any contrast will introduce banding (tested, the theory not the bear!). Raw would'nt have that problem so people always say ETTR only works with raw, but we've found it works with 8bit too, in fact 8bit needs it more than raw does. 

I have a the broadcasters C300s here and will do a test on exposure, especially ETTR with skin tones. I suppose the results recorded externally should be pretty similar on the C100 and even better on the C100II so close enough

[mercer]

On October 30, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Ebrahim Saadawi said:

 

This in theory is a possibility and on paper it's true, but in practise, in another old thread, we tried seeing any visual disadvantage from placing the midtones higher and it never showed up, only better results including skin that's squished into the top and brought back not just the shadows. It also gives you the most dynamic range of the camera as you get to least noisy shadows and most highlight information. 

The only place I wouldn't love to ETTR, is for example exposing a polar bear on white snow, and just have a narrow 0.5mm line stuck to the waveform top, stretching that to get any contrast will introduce banding (tested, the theory not the bear!). Raw would'nt have that problem so people always say ETTR only works with raw, but we've found it works with 8bit too, in fact 8bit needs it more than raw does. 

I have a the broadcasters C300s here and will do a test on exposure, especially ETTR with skin tones. I suppose the results recorded externally should be pretty similar on the C100 and even better on the C100II so close enough

Where are the results of this test? Lots of tests over the years, but the results are nowhere to be found, yet claimed to be proven true?

Since I am a new XC10 owner, I have been researching proper C-Log exposure. All of my research goes against this theory, yet this post is on the first page of the Google search.

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Since I am a new XC10 owner, I have been researching proper C-Log exposure. All of my research goes against this theory, yet this post is on the first page of the Google search.

Is awful when google results get messed up with bad misinformation :-/ Like many of us, I rely so much upon google every day!

[mercer]

37 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Is awful when google results get messed up with bad misinformation :-/ Like many of us, I rely so much upon google every day!

Obviously, it's our job to wade through the nonsense, but when the nonsense is "proven" true...

[kidzrevil]

On 7/26/2016 at 3:45 PM, mercer said:

Obviously, it's our job to wade through the nonsense, but when the nonsense is "proven" true...

Most of the info eebrahim spoke as "truth" were bullshit. It would be a shame if people took his word for this stuff before they tested it out. I always found with LOG i can push an image a stop and even 2 stops in slog and get great results. Just pay attention to what you want to expose for. If you want to make sure the subject has great skin raise the exposure just under the clipping point and pull the image back in post. At that point the noise that would plague the midtones is gone cause the image was exposed far beyond the noise floor. Add color noise or filmconvert grain if you are worried about the precious 2 bits you could have lost in the shadow area that provides the least amount of data to begin with.

Im gonna shoot my whole LA trip in CLOG and show you my results @mercer