Jump to content

EOSHD LOG Converter for the GH4


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I just wanted to throw in my two cents of experience with Andrew's Log Converter. I've shot a couple of little jobs with it and it's been absolutely great for me. I transcode my footage to Prores with

I didn't have any Cine V footage at hand, but here is Portrait > EOSHD LOG converter > Kodak Elite Chrome LOG LUT

Very nice Aaron. And thanks for your support with the purchase. Nice that people are experimenting with different in-camera profiles before taking it to the EOSHD LOG Converter. Curious to see the r

Posted Images

I'm getting too much magenta when I apply both the converter LUT and the output LUT in FCPX. I'm using the EOSHD Cinema settings. 

Before applying EOSHD LOG input LUT and 1DC-style output LUT:

Before_EOSHD_Log_conversion.thumb.png.76

After applying EOSHD input and output LUTs:

 EOSHD_Log_converted.thumb.png.35c085526d

The true color of the shirt is closer to the original (pre-LUTs) version.

Andrew, I also noticed that the Cinema settings in your LUT instructions do not include a Tone setting. However, the Cinema settings in your GH4 Guide specify a Tone setting of +2. Should I set Tone to 0 (zero) for the purposes of the LUT conversion?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

Looks like it might be a white balance issue, but it's easily fixable. Adjust tone to preference in FCPX or experiment with the in-camera tone.

May I ask a favour? Can you upload the file of the lady in the red top or at least a bit of it (1-2 seconds) so I can test a few things for you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The final output LUT is whatever you want it to be. It could be one of James Miller's excellent DELUTS for example, or you can use the beautiful 1D C LUT which I included with the download. That really does wonders for warmer skin, healthier looking actors, no more weird yellow casts, and highlights look more cinematic, colours have more impact, it overall looks more stylistic than without.

Sorry if this is a silly question but is this 1DC lut available on it's own and if so how can I get it? I assume it's a LUT designed for grading 1DC C-Log footage?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is untouched aside from adding the LOG convert and 1D-C LUT and is using the EOSHD cineV profile. I used the camera's cloudy WB as there were a lot of overhead clouds, but then the sun poked through the trees here. I'd expect it to be warm and the magenta is much better, but I'm still seeing it. Any thoughts? I don't have a 1D-C so not sure if this is expected of the look. I've also attached the original with lots of green cast from the grass, but it is much brighter.

Screen Shot 2015-08-18 at 12.27.49 PM.png

Screen Shot 2015-08-18 at 12.31.29 PM.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

One nice thing about this LUT is it is modelled to emulate c-log so you have a defined starting point to work from.  Some of the other REC709 to Log LUTS just seem to produce a generic super flat image, which does't seem to be based on anything in particular. Andrew, can you describe what process you used to create the LUT? was it using 3D LUT creator? I assume it is based from the 1DC version of c-log?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

One nice thing about this LUT is it is modelled to emulate c-log so you have a defined starting point to work from.  Some of the other REC709 to Log LUTS just seem to produce a generic super flat image, which does't seem to be based on anything in particular. Andrew, can you describe what process you used to create the LUT? was it using 3D LUT creator? I assume it is based from the 1DC version of c-log?

3D LUT export from Resolve 11. Much of the work in creating the 1D C LUT was to keep fine tuning it across a ton of shots from both my GH4 and 1D C until I had something that closely matched.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Already long ago I wanted to write about tests, discussions of tha last five six years.

While the an average tester is discussing, following the numbers(mostly resolution and fps),

the professionals are talking about color and latitude.

I still prefer my Canon 5d3 color&Magic Lantern over any Sony resolution or fps.

Only my opinion.

Happy shooting

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew builds some amazing stuff and I totally think he should make some money with the time he invests into EOSHD, but isnt GH4 LOG Converter total bullshit in theory?

Log gives benefits in terms of higher dynamic range and smooth highlight roll of, but these two factors only play into account if they are applied between capturing the light and saving it in a video file. after that the dynamic range is set and so is the definition in highlight roll of. taking regular footage and making it flat doesnt give you any more information that you had in the first place. quite the opposite: flattening footage and making it pop again, means loosing information in the process.

Yes, I agree the results look good in the examples, but one should be able to achieve this based on the original footage directly.

What am I missing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

What am I missing?

Manners?

The whole point of this LUT you missed above. It is to make the GH4 compatible with LUTs designed for Canon LOG / S-LOG / Arri LOG-C footage. You can't apply a LUT that was designed for a flat LOG image out of the camera to CineLikeD and the GH4 still does not have V-LOG.

Also with carefully fine tuning the in-camera picture profile for more dynamic range it actually captures in rec.709 space nearly all of what the sensor sees and the LOG converter allows you to better utilise that in post. No it doesn't mean losing information in the process. Opposite in fact.

Andrew, thank you for creating this C-Log lut, it is really impressive in how well it resembles C-log! 

Thanks Charlie. Canon LOG is quite light LOG, not as extreme as S-LOG. So I was able to get the GH4's image really close.

Yes it is like having Canon LOG in-camera once you do the conversion... same amount of shadow detail, same contrast curve, same saturation, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew builds some amazing stuff and I totally think he should make some money with the time he invests into EOSHD, but isnt GH4 LOG Converter total bullshit in theory?

Log gives benefits in terms of higher dynamic range and smooth highlight roll of, but these two factors only play into account if they are applied between capturing the light and saving it in a video file. after that the dynamic range is set and so is the definition in highlight roll of. taking regular footage and making it flat doesnt give you any more information that you had in the first place. quite the opposite: flattening footage and making it pop again, means loosing information in the process.

Yes, I agree the results look good in the examples, but one should be able to achieve this based on the original footage directly.

What am I missing?

It's great for adding an array of LOG LUTs to give the GH4 different looks. I was skeptical at first but I'm really enjoying it. Here is LOG converter with an Alexa LOGtoREC709 LUT.

goi9JyB.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ciao Andrew!
Do you think your converter could work also with the 1080p file?
Is it possible to use it with the Natural profile? I ask you because I have a recent shot that I made with Natural (contrast -3) and it would be great if I could flat it.

Anyway I sometimes use also your profiles I learn from your amazing guide, but I mostly shoot in 1080p.
Thank you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew builds some amazing stuff and I totally think he should make some money with the time he invests into EOSHD, but isnt GH4 LOG Converter total bullshit in theory?

Log gives benefits in terms of higher dynamic range and smooth highlight roll of, but these two factors only play into account if they are applied between capturing the light and saving it in a video file. after that the dynamic range is set and so is the definition in highlight roll of. taking regular footage and making it flat doesnt give you any more information that you had in the first place. quite the opposite: flattening footage and making it pop again, means loosing information in the process.

Yes, I agree the results look good in the examples, but one should be able to achieve this based on the original footage directly.

What am I missing?

There is a custom in-camera profile recommendation to be used with this custom gamma post adjustment that has a color grade, all baked into a single 3D LUT, which tries to bring the gamma and color in range for 3rd party *log LUTs - with a little hyperbole thrown in about "gives ... log capability" and "all the other benefits of log". You're correct with respect to the impossibility of increasing detail. A LUT that is designed to adjust only gamma can also be described as 1D, it's sometimes referred to (when used in conjunction with a 3D lut) as a pre-LUT. Separating gamma from color adjustments also allows you the flexibility to edit conversions, offsets, illuminants or grades separately from intensity. 1D's are invertible because they have no crosstalk, although that's more of a workflow pipeline issue, not a big deal for quick looks.

* log is generic but obviously there are several different popular versions, some very different. sRGB and rec709 by comparison do have standardized gamma.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew, a few questions now that I've purchased this pack and looked at it more closely:

1. If we use an external recorder to go straight to ProRes, should we still use the master pedestal you recommend? My understanding is this lifts the definition of "black" and that the camera won't record a true black (e.g. pixel luminance of 0) if you raise the master pedestal. By doing that we lose the bottom X percent of our 8 or 10 bits. With an external recorder hopefully not overly compressing the blacks, is this still necessary?

2. Do you notice a significant difference when recording externally at 10-bit versus internally when shooting for this LUT?

3. (Goes along with 2, in a way) If I'm going to do a downres to 1080p, is it higher quality to do that first (and "boosting" the colour information per pixel) before the LUT?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...