EOSHD C-LOG

[Nikkor]

On 7/9/2016 at 1:47 PM, Pedro Knigge said:

Yes, It's works

Thanks, I might buy one, put a speedbooster on it and shoot some moody stuff with it.

[mercer]

53 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

Thanks, I might buy one, put a speedbooster on it and shoot some moody stuff with it.

The eos-m is a fun camera. Up until I picked up the XC10, that was my favorite camera to shoot with. The M3 has some extra controls (focus peaking, tilting LCD, IS) and is not much more money, so you may want to consider that model instead. Of course, the original M can be used with ML. 

[Nikkor]

2 hours ago, mercer said:

The eos-m is a fun camera. Up until I picked up the XC10, that was my favorite camera to shoot with. The M3 has some extra controls (focus peaking, tilting LCD, IS) and is not much more money, so you may want to consider that model instead. Of course, the original M can be used with ML. 

The first one can be found for next to nothing on the used market, I don't really want to spend any money on this

[mercer]

18 hours ago, tomsemiterrific said:

Mary has been in 28 shows, has starred in most of them, and  is a top-notch singer. The best thing is to get her talking in an animated way about something she likes or finds funny. Regarding the 80D I wasn't crazy about it until I got the f 2.8 STM zoom---an excellent lens. Now, the new custom profiles and C-log Andrew has created have given the 80D a new lease on life. I love the skin tones--they seem so alive and vibrant.

Generally, I think it's not all that hard to get the 80D with eoshd Log and Canon Log to match. I think you just have to be careful to white balance the camera well--using a Kelvin Number. But people with experience doing this may disagree and have a better way.

The thing I like about the 80D most is how easy it is to shoot and get good results. The dual pixel focus is a great feature---secure enough to trust it and be able to concentrate on composition and exposure. I XC10 gives similar ease and security.

The issue between these two cams is that the 80D only shoots in 1080p---so no real matching in 4k. But, IMO, the good news is the XC10 is a great 1080p camera. All the footage here was shot in 1080p. I really don't care for any of the custom profiles Canon provides, but I really like Andrew's. I wish I could get the cinema pic files he created on the XC10.

Great information here, thanks. I mostly use 1080p with the XC10, so that's not a problem. I'd just like a two cam set up for close ups and then the 80D would become my knock around camera... Or the M5 if the specs and price is good.

I've actually been pretty impressed by the footage I have seen online from the 80D. That high bitrate, looks as good as the 4K, downscaled to 1080p, that I've been getting with my GX85.

With Super 35mm and fast lenses, the 80D looks like a winner. I've also been getting into stills lately. I originally was going to pick up a D5500 for stills, my GX85 for knock around video and my XC10 for run and gun prosumer work, but a week ago I got a great deal on a mint 50D that I loaded Magic Lantern Raw on and I am enjoying that a bunch.

So, to make a long story short, most of my cameras are Canon, so I think it makes more sense to start investing in a system as opposed to these hodgepodge of different camera brands. Btw, which 2.8 STM zoom do you have? If I get the 80D, I definitely want to start trading up some of my 50, some odd, vintage lenses for one or two, good native primes that will work well with the 80D and DPAF. 

[tomsemiterrific]

6 hours ago, mercer said:

With Super 35mm and fast lenses, the 80D looks like a winner. I've also been getting into stills lately. I originally was going to pick up a D5500 for stills, my GX85 for knock around video and my XC10 for run and gun prosumer work, but a week ago I got a great deal on a mint 50D that I loaded Magic Lantern Raw on and I am enjoying that a bunch.

So, to make a long story short, most of my cameras are Canon, so I think it makes more sense to start investing in a system as opposed to these hodgepodge of different camera brands. Btw, which 2.8 STM zoom do you have? If I get the 80D, I definitely want to start trading up some of my 50, some odd, vintage lenses for one or two, good native primes that will work well with the 80D and DPAF. 

I've never loaded magic lantern on any Canon. I purchased a 5D Mk III, but the firmware prevented me from loading lantern in for use. Why does Canon do this? Pissed me off! 

They don't provide what you need to shoot and get the best results from their products, and then prevent you from supplementing their lack. In the long run I don't think that is wise business policy. As soon as a company comes up with what you need and treats you like a human being you'll never by Canon again.

Of course, I'm an amateur at this, but I'm a professional at my work, and I've learn on thing from it that applies to everything you do: the easier the tool you use makes the job the better you can do it and the better the results.
The best example I personally know of this is the Canon C300 Mk II--but you shouldn't have to pay 16,000.00 for such a tool--not today, not considering the present state of the market.
I think someone is going to give much of this stuff in a really usable package for a reasonable price, and Canon will be gone or really hurt badly. I feel the same as you about investing in a system, and there are pluses and minuses into both. The big minuses with Canon is that they are $$$. The second is they don't have very fast lenses in full frame, very fast zoom lenses in full frame or crop, and very fast lenses in zoom with IS. In order to get a full frame 2.8 zoom with IS I had to buy a Tamron---and it weighs a ton. The fasts zoom Canon has with IS is only a  constant f.4...very disappointing. 

In crop you have the f2.8 zoom I mentioned. It's very good, and has good IS. 

Here is a link to the description. It's very good: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425812-USA/Canon_1242B002AA_EF_S_17_55mm_f_2_8_IS.html

So, I hear they may release magic lantern for the 80D. Have you heard that? I wonder if it's true?

Short of that, if I got an older Canon DSLR for magic lantern which would you recommend? Is it hard to install? 

[Danny G. Taillon]

Received my 5DMK IV today
I will try the 4K once I get my faster CF cards.

but for now, trying out the 1080p ALL-I, 23.98fps. I find it very sharp compared to what I saw in my 6D. 

Those images are just basic screen grabs from Final Cut X (I added the 2:35 ratio aswell)

First image is using EOSHD C-log.

I'm very surprise how it handles the C300 C-LOG Impulz luts I have.

Second image is using C300-CLOG-Fuji PRO 400_FC lut from Impulz

Of course, those are just out of the box basic tests under poor light

ISO 8000, F2.8...

But I'm eager to test this in good light and see the performance against VisionTech and VisonColor profiles which I've been using on my 6D.

Cheers!

[mercer]

5 minutes ago, tomsemiterrific said:

I've never loaded magic lantern on any Canon. I purchased a 5D Mk III, but the firmware prevented me from loading lantern in for use. Why does Canon do this? Pissed me off! 

They don't provide what you need to shoot and get the best results from their products, and then prevent you from supplementing their lack. In the long run I don't think that is wise business policy. As soon as a company comes up with what you need and treats you like a human being you'll never by Canon again.

Of course, I'm an amateur at this, but I'm a professional at my work, and I've learn on thing from it that applies to everything you do: the easier the tool you use makes the job the better you can do it and the better the results.
The best example I personally know of this is the Canon C300 Mk II--but you shouldn't have to pay 16,000.00 for such a tool--not today, not considering the present state of the market.
I think someone is going to give much of this stuff in a really usable package for a reasonable price, and Canon will be gone or really hurt badly. I feel the same as you about investing in a system, and there are pluses and minuses into both. The big minuses with Canon is that they are $$$. The second is they don't have very fast lenses in full frame, very fast zoom lenses in full frame or crop, and very fast lenses in zoom with IS. In order to get a full frame 2.8 zoom with IS I had to buy a Tamron---and it weighs a ton. The fasts zoom Canon has with IS is only a  constant f.4...very disappointing. 

In crop you have the f2.8 zoom I mentioned. It's very good, and has good IS. 

Here is a link to the description. It's very good: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425812-USA/Canon_1242B002AA_EF_S_17_55mm_f_2_8_IS.html

So, I hear they may release magic lantern for the 80D. Have you heard that? I wonder if it's true?

Short of that, if I got an older Canon DSLR for magic lantern which would you recommend? Is it hard to install? 

Installing Magic Lantern is simple. You download Magic Lantern to your computer, verify the camera is running the proper firmware. Format your card in camera. Put it in your card reader and copy the files from magic lantern on your card. Then put the card back into camera and run firmware update. 

I don't know how much you would want to spend, but the mkiii is the best camera for ML Raw. The mkii is good as well. Any of their cameras that use CF cards works the best for Raw and will get you closest to 1080p Raw.

Yeah Canon can be infuriating some times, but like you said, they get you there in the straightest line possible, especially for someone like me that is horrible at color grading. 

I think they just have too many camera models, so they up sell everything. 

Thanks for the lens suggestion, I will definitely look into it. I've also heard good things about the 35mm f2. It's a little pricy but I'm at a point where I'd rather have a few good lenses than a dozen okay ones. 

[mercer]

@tomsemiterrific that 17-55mm is the lens I keep hearing about. I just lost a bid on it last night. It's that good?

[tomsemiterrific]

4 minutes ago, mercer said:

@tomsemiterrific that 17-55mm is the lens I keep hearing about. I just lost a bid on it last night. It's that good?

Yes, it is very good. I will say this though: it is much bigger and heavier than other Canon STM lenses. Apparently, it is built on the lines of the larger, full frame lenses. This means one thing: it's going to make some noise in the focusing operations.

Now, if occasional focusing sound is not critical in your walkabout shooting you'll love this lens--it's sharp, the colors are beautiful, and the constant 2.8 is terrific. The other STM zoom lenses are also wonderful in image, but no constant f stop, and nothing lower than f.3.5.---but much smaller, lighter, and super quiet.

When I'm walking about sound is seldom critical regarding what I'm doing, so i love this lens. The stabilization is excellent, and the heaviness of the lens make the stabilization even better. If you got the lens I don't think you would be disappointed.

[mercer]

25 minutes ago, tomsemiterrific said:

Yes, it is very good. I will say this though: it is much bigger and heavier than other Canon STM lenses. Apparently, it is built on the lines of the larger, full frame lenses. This means one thing: it's going to make some noise in the focusing operations.

Now, if occasional focusing sound is not critical in your walkabout shooting you'll love this lens--it's sharp, the colors are beautiful, and the constant 2.8 is terrific. The other STM zoom lenses are also wonderful in image, but no constant f stop, and nothing lower than f.3.5.---but much smaller, lighter, and super quiet.

When I'm walking about sound is seldom critical regarding what I'm doing, so i love this lens. The stabilization is excellent, and the heaviness of the lens make the stabilization even better. If you got the lens I don't think you would be disappointed.

It seems great. I don't mind the weight, but the length bothers me a little. I am also considering the 17-40mm f4 L or the 24-70 f/4. They're both a hair lighter and two inches shorter. But to be honest I am still unsure if I am gonna go with 80D or M5. I have to wait and see the final specs on the M5 and price. 

[tomsemiterrific]

40 minutes ago, mercer said:

It seems great. I don't mind the weight, but the length bothers me a little. I am also considering the 17-40mm f4 L or the 24-70 f/4. They're both a hair lighter and two inches shorter. But to be honest I am still unsure if I am gonna go with 80D or M5. I have to wait and see the final specs on the M5 and price. 

Here's another full frame you can use on both crop and full frame lenses:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1081813-REG/canon_9521b002_ef_24_105mm_f_3_5_5_6_is.html

Its very good--and quiet.

[mercer]

29 minutes ago, tomsemiterrific said:

Here's another full frame you can use on both crop and full frame lenses:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1081813-REG/canon_9521b002_ef_24_105mm_f_3_5_5_6_is.html

Its very good--and quiet.

Thanks, I'll check it out. I think that's the lens Andrew talked about in his 80d review. Btw, if you're not worried about sound and you want to give Magic Lantern a try, then maybe you should look into the 50D. They're next to nothing used. And they work well with ML Raw. Obviously since the camera didn't have a video function (released) it never recorded sound. But in all honesty there is a kind of freedom not having to worry about it and just concentrating on the imagery.

Anyway, to get back on topic, I think I may load Andrew's log profile onto the 50d or my eos-m, for now and give it a whirl. It seems like it can open up a lot of avenues for matching his C-Log to actual Canon Log. And in the end, that is exactly what I am looking for. 

[tomsemiterrific]

14 minutes ago, mercer said:

Thanks, I'll check it out. I think that's the lens Andrew talked about in his 80d review. Btw, if you're not worried about sound and you want to give Magic Lantern a try, then maybe you should look into the 50D. They're next to nothing used. And they work well with ML Raw. Obviously since the camera didn't have a video function (released) it never recorded sound. But in all honesty there is a kind of freedom not having to worry about it and just create the imagery. Anyway, to get back on topic, I think I may load his log profile onto the 50d for now and give it a whirl. It seems like it can open up a lot of avenues for matching his C-Log to actual Canon Log. And in the end, for all intents and purposes that is exactly what I am looking for. 

I don't think your matching of C-Log between two cams will be automatic. Some experimentation with exposure and white balance will be part of the solution, but there will be some necessity of grading.

I know most of the pros here use Blackmagic DaVinci Resolve. I suppose someday I'll have to work on learning it. But if you get FCPX and the color grading plugin called Color Finale you will find it's fantastic . I graded the footage of Mary with Color Finale and FCPX--and I think it's pretty good results. And Color Finale is only $99.00...worth it's weight in gold.

[mercer]

24 minutes ago, tomsemiterrific said:

I don't think your matching of C-Log between two cams will be automatic. Some experimentation with exposure and white balance will be part of the solution, but there will be some necessity of grading.

I know most of the pros here use Blackmagic DaVinci Resolve. I suppose someday I'll have to work on learning it. But if you get FCPX and the color grading plugin called Color Finale you will find it's fantastic . I graded the footage of Mary with Color Finale and FCPX--and I think it's pretty good results. And Color Finale is only $99.00...worth it's weight in gold.

Yeah, Color Finale is what I use as well. It is a great program. I figured there will be a little work, but if it gets me halfway there, hopefully I can fill in the rest. 

[Asmundma]

3 hours ago, Danny G. Taillon said:

Received my 5DMK IV today
I will try the 4K once I get my faster CF cards.

but for now, trying out the 1080p ALL-I, 23.98fps. I find it very sharp compared to what I saw in my 6D. 

Those images are just basic screen grabs from Final Cut X (I added the 2:35 ratio aswell)

First image is using EOSHD C-log.

I'm very surprise how it handles the C300 C-LOG Impulz luts I have.

Second image is using C300-CLOG-Fuji PRO 400_FC lut from Impulz

Of course, those are just out of the box basic tests under poor light

ISO 8000, F2.8...

But I'm eager to test this in good light and see the performance against VisionTech and VisonColor profiles which I've been using on my 6D.

Cheers!

Sorry to say, but this does not look good in my taste. Horrible brown tint and probably the white balance is way out. Its not sharp either. 

Its not good publicity for c-log - 

Apologize for the negative feedback, but there is a lot of competent people on this forum to learn from.

[jpfilmz]

Ordered. These picture profiles look fantastic.  Im running a CLOG comparison between the 5D3 h264, XC10 clog HD and 4K.  Later on I'll run it against 5D3 Raw and the C100MK2

UPDATE:
wow...these clog profiles are really good! The CLOG profile is pretty spot on by my estimation.  The first 4 images are of 5D3 h264 f/5.6 @ 3200 ISO, the next 2 are XC10 HD and the next 3 are XC10 4K...both set to f/4.0@ 2000ISO.  I have a wedding shoot this weekend and I'm definitely going to shoot with the CLOG profile over the neutral profile on the 5D3.  

[Asmundma]

Hm, I bought the c-log the first day and installed it on the 1dx2. So far I am not convinced that c-log give higher dynamic range. Is there a difference between compressing high lights and shadows into an S-curve or the real canon- log? (Do we lose color information using s-curve?)  Has it been proved to be similar??  or is this just a fake?  Please prove me wrong!  

It could be useful to match different cameras going via c-log...?  However, if Canons color tech is so fantastic, why not use another PS and get the same results without much grading.   

Most of the post in this thread only shows use on rather low contrast scenes.

Now, Andrew has to prove that this make sense.

[Danny G. Taillon]

6 hours ago, Asmundma said:

Sorry to say, but this does not look good in my taste. Horrible brown tint and probably the white balance is way out. Its not sharp either. 

Its not good publicity for c-log - 

Apologize for the negative feedback, but there is a lot of competent people on this forum to learn from.

Oups! Well, I did say

"Those images are just basic screen grabs"

"poor light

ISO 8000, F2.8..."

Don't worry, I'll make up for it, I just wanted to illustrate the fact that my C300 luts applied well to the footage.

[tweak]

10 hours ago, mercer said:

@tomsemiterrific that 17-55mm is the lens I keep hearing about. I just lost a bid on it last night. It's that good?

I have that and the 24-105. In my opinion the 24-105 is a much better lens. 17-55 is alright, certainly usable, but I don't use it much anymore. (I'm shooting mostly APS-C).

[mercer]

48 minutes ago, tweak said:

I have that and the 24-105. In my opinion the 24-105 is a much better lens. 17-55 is alright, certainly usable, but I don't use it much anymore. (I'm shooting mostly APS-C).

Have you ever used the 24-70mm IS L f/4? That's the one I am most tempted by. Good size and weight. It should adapt well to the M5 if I go that route instead of the 80D.