hyalinejim

5D3 ML 1080p is not even full 1080 resolution in terms of its resolving power. It has more resolution than the default Canon H264, but not as much as the C100 1080p, for example.

15 minutes ago, Petter Magnusson said:

while with vlog I can use NR +5

If you have the time and the inclination you might get better results using Neat Video in post on V-Log material shot at -5 NR. Neat Video gives great results if you shoot a colour chart and build a custom noise profile for each ISO. Often, I use temporal NR only and not spatial as this is enough. It's also good to prep V-Log material if you're going to use strong LUTs, even at ISO 400.

17 minutes ago, Petter Magnusson said:

the 10 bit file has much more contrast and less dynamic range!

This is probably how Premiere is interpreting the file - there is info above 100 and below 0 IRE. Use curves to pull it back. At least that's how 10bit CineD behaves for me in After Effects (32 bit colour space).

2 hours ago, mercer said:

My only issue with it is that I have seen a complete mix of amazing footage or horrendous footage.

I've had my GH5 for a week now and have been playing with it. My hopes for it were that it would be an amazing and discreet handheld camera (like the XC10) with very good image quality (unlike the XC10 at high ISO). My concern was that colour wouldn't be up to scratch. I see a lot of Panasonic videos with non-pleasing skin, to my eyes at least. I was excited by 10bit V-Log, and the potential that the colorimetry of the camera could be altered to a certain extent within the limitations of the 10 bit 422 codec.

I know that Leeming luts exist. But accurate colour does not look nice to me. I like the Canon look, and even more than that I like the look of 35mm photographic film. So for the past few days I've been developing two kinds of lut. One is to match the colour and gamma of the GH5 with Magic Lantern Cinelog (ACR) RAW. And the other is to match the colour and contrast of Ektar 100 film. Here are some results of the Ektar lut:

This is a look that I like... a lot. I can see myself shooting V-Log and being confident that the image can be moulded the way I want it.

Does Cine-D look the same on the LCD/EVF as it does on your computer?

Have you double checked that LUT monitoring is actually selected in the menu? It sounds like you're not getting the effect of the LUT and looking at pure V-Log

Menu > Creative Video > V-LogL View Assist > Lut Monitor Display > ON

Maybe check out page 238 of the manual - settings to change brightness and contrast of LCD and/or viewfinder.

Big thanks for this! I'm just getting to grips with the 10bit files. It took After Effects 1min 30s to import a folder of 10bit HD MOVs versus 15 seconds for the rewrapped MXFs.

8 minutes ago, PannySVHS said:

 

 

Hey Mike, looking great! So EOS Standard is just Canons out of the box ENG style profile? Regarding High ISO, would you say it can compete with G6 or later GH4 or G7, say

Yes, EOS Standard is one of the ready to go profiles but it has the least heavy noise reduction applied to it. I've successfully matched it to C-Log and Magic Lantern Log, so I can use a range of luts on it.

Not sure what the second part of your post is asking? XC10 has a smaller sensor than M43 and its high ISO performance is not as good as the cameras you list. The XC10 image begins to deteriorate noticeably from 800 and starts to be problematic at 1600. Add a slow lens into the equation = camera always needs light.

Could I suggest, at least for the forum, to change the blue bits at the left and right to a neutral grey. That amount of blue is going to alter colour perception of embedded videos and screengrabs.

I took my XC10 on hols with me to Bali and took it out for an hour or so on a few different occasions. Here's the first of those:

I shot in EOS Standard for all of the usual reasons and graded it with a custom LUT designed to simulate Ektar 100 film. Stuck a bit of grain on there as well, which kind of survived the vimeo compression but not quite. This was HD - I'm impressed again by the files in terms of their gradeability... as long as the ISO is low, which it was here. I have another video coming up with some nasty high ISO stuff!

No sign of Wasabi or Watson batteries in EU. I just ordered from Amazon US and will have to take the hit on import duties. Still a fraction of the cost of OEMs.

3 hours ago, thecouchguy said:

Do you think a canon 24-70 will fill the gap and give a good result for video?

I use the Tamron 24-70 2.8 for 95% of the time. But I'm doing documentary, not narrative. It's good quality, good value, and has IS.

Where to buy Wasabi batteries in EU?

Yes, but you need to boost the exposure for ML DNGs.

Yes, either using Resolve or I think cr2hdr does a version of Log as well but it's Mac only so I haven't tested it.

42 minutes ago, howard said:

I wish there was a GH5 vs Mark 3 ML raw 14bit comparison somewhere.

I just got my GH5 today. One of the things I'm going to want to do is to match V-Log to ML Cinelog. In the process of doing that I'll probably be able to make such a comparison for you. But it will take a while as I don't have V-Log yet.

For those of you that are ML users, check out my Ektar luts.

TWISTED - this one is easy to use:
https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=19338.msg183659#msg183659

ADVANCED - this gives amazing contrast but takes a bit of effort:
https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=19338.msg183803#msg183803

ML footage needs to be in Cinelog-C or else Alexa Log C

5 hours ago, jhnkng said:

You only retouch in 16bit in Photoshop if you're doing lots of blending and compositing, because you have more shades of colour to work with while retouching. And you need to work in 16bit if you're working with products that are specifically colour matched -- fashion, for example, where the colours of the clothing needs to match with the real thing, or a product like Coke where the red has to be a very specific shade. Working in 16bit (or 32bit for that matter) means you have more shades of red at your disposal.

You can't actually see the difference in colour when switching from 8bit to 16bit, because screens aren't capable of showing 16bit colour. For critical colour in photoshop you need to look at the numbers -- you can't just trust the screen, even if you're using a properly calibrated Eizo.

So to answer your question, yes, you will need a 16bit graphics card and 16bit display to *accurately* display all 16bits of colour information. Else what you're actually looking at is whatever your screen is capable of displaying.

The point of higher bitrates is to have more elbow room in post. My question was rhetorical. The post I quoted implies there's no point working with high bit depth files on lower bit depth hardware. That's not true.

3 hours ago, Charlie said:

 Im pretty sure most consumer graphics cards can't even output 10 bit colour. Then you need a monitor that can display it. At the bare minimum. 

Where does this misconception come from? Ask yourself, do you need a 16bit graphics card and display to work in 16bit in Photoshop?

8 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

Log + ETTR is the ticket with that camera also imo. An absolutely gorgeous image.

Absolutely not. Log on that camera is a disaster of spatial and temporal noise reduction. 

Check out my posts earlier in this thread on EOS Standard, and a lut to match it to C-Log if necessary.

Starting here:

I'm on my holidays, otherwise I'd be all over this. A1ex just posted"

"new build posted (minor fixes + experimental 8/10/12-bit lossless)."

Gamechanger? Somebody please load that up right now!

I'm in Bali at the moment. Getting some amazing images on my XC10. All in good light, of course!

What nonsense is this? (from the C5D article):

Quote

Some people say medium format mimics how your eyes actually see the world better than the smaller Super35-sized imagers thanks to being able to shoot an extremely wide scene but still have the “real-world” look of a lens with a longer focal length. The subject remains flat and not ‘stretched’ out.

Presumably they mean that medium format lenses are said to be better corrected for barrel distortion. But the way they phrase it suggests a deep misunderstanding of perspective. And after their resistance to the feedback on their GH5 article, I can't even be bothered to post this in their comments.

@jcs You have a seemingly infinite reserve of patience

+1 @Emanuel you seem like a smart fellow, but 50% of the time I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, although you do seem to be talking about something. And I'm a smart fellow as well.

Of course, if I were to try posting in Portuguese you'd have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about... 100% of the time!

A pro colourist worked on this 10bit VLog