Log is Boring

[mercer]

I'm at a point where I ALMOST see no point in shooting log profiles. There are a few good ones, but most require more grading after a utility LUT is applied and/or creates scenarios where everybody's footage looks pretty much exactly the same.

So if you're just slapping on a LUT and calling it a day, for 9 out of 10 shots, you could just use a standard rec709 picture profile and get similar results.

With the advent of 10bit video, in recent years, most standard picture profiles look even better than they ever have with thicker color and near perfect skintones. Sure there are instances when you may need the extra stop or two of dynamic range a Log profile offers, or a specific LUT gets you a relatively quick look by shooting Log, but again... 9 out of 10 times, a slightly tweaked Rec709 picture profile will end up looking better and get you there so much easier without worrying about CSTs and color pipelines... especially since damn near ever Log profile is just trying to emulate Arri LogC which in turn was designed to emulate film.

Speaking of, I have the Arri LogC3 software key on my GH6 and it's pretty good... better than vLog but it's still noisy as hell with ugly chroma noise in the midtones and shadows so I recently went back to CineLikeD and V and I am back to making a couple contrast and saturation adjustments and being happy with it. I'm sure there is a slight hit in DR, but nothing so drastic that I'm surprised or wish I shot in Log instead.

So Log is cool, I'm glad it's available, but it's fairly unnecessary in most situations and can cause a bigger headache.

[Emanuel]

Love your insights, you should post more :- )

[kye]

Definitely agree..  especially considering that if you really want to push the image around, you can convert it to LOG and make changes and then convert it back again.